Las Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Bump Stock Makers

[HAB911]

Victims of the Las Vegas shooting sued manufacturers of bump fire stocks, accusing them of negligence. A dozen bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire with the rapidity of an automatic weapon, were found in gunman Stephen Paddock’s 32nd-floor Mandalay Bay Resort hotel room. The attack targeted the Route 91 Harvest festival and left nearly 60 dead and some 500 wounded.

Filed in Clark County District Court, the complaint, which seeks class action status, alleges that Slide Fire Solutions Inc, a bump stock manufacturer, and other unidentified manufacturers and retailers behaved negligently in selling and producing these devices.

“This horrific assault did not occur, could not occur, and would not have occurred with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self-defense,” the complaint states.




https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/las-vegas-shooting-victims-sue-bump-stock-maker

[HopeAgain]

1. Yes! This is one way to get some gun control.

This is the most foreseeable use of automatic weapons -- the killing of large numbers of people before they can get away. It certainly isn't manufactured for target shooting or hunting. I hope they get sued out of business.

[sdfernando]

4. I agree and as well...but....

I'm not confident this will ultimately succeed. If the manufacturers lose, they will appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS if necessary with the assist of the NRA. Current make up of the court is not favorable.

Tell me again how both candidates are the same??? (not directed at OP...just an obvious statement)

[Always Right]

59. The reason manufacturers are protected by law is precisely because

people have filed frivolous law suits with the specific intent of putting companies out of business due to the costs of defending a suit over illegal use of a product.

Note: that is not my opinion, the law itself gives the justifications at 15 U.S. Code § 7901.

I suspect that if car manufacturers got sued over every drunk driving death that you would quickly see a similar law passed to protect them.

[HopeAgain]

74. This is lot more like cigarettes than drunk drivers

what non-deleterious used does an automatic weapon hack have?

[Always Right]

84. I'm not sure that is a fair comparison.

With cigarettes, the harm was cancer when used as intended while drunk driving is criminal use, which is what we are talking about.

As for use, an automatic weapon can be used in any situation that a semi-automatic weapon can as it doesn't have to be used in automatic mode.

In general, the police and military use automatic weapons in semi auto mode as it is substantially faster and more accurate.

In the LV shooter's case, it was still a semi-automatic gun (legally speaking) but his intention wasn't accuracy, it was volume of fire.

In the LV shooting, there were 10 wounded for each one killed while in the Orlando Pulse shooting (second most deadliest in the US) had a roughly 1 to 1 ratio. That is the difference between aimed fire and spray and pray of full auto.

[lkinwi]

2. Good!

[Hoyt]

3. Great. Now remove the law that prohibits victims from suing gun manufacturers and profiteers.

They helped create the atmosphere that allows people to arm up. In fact, the gun profiteers should have modified their guns to prevent simple attachments that made the rifle even more deadly. Of course, they are deadly enough before mods. That's why gun-humpers are attracted to the dang things.

[Always Right]

5. Modify how?

How could you any manufacturer possibly modify a gun to prevent this sort of attachment?

Any method used to attach the stock is how the bump stock would be attached.

While I understand what you are trying to say, your point can't be taken seriously if your "solution" suggests something impossible.




On another note, anyone have a link to the complaint for the lawsuit? I'd like to see what it says.

[Hoyt]

6. It would be quite simple really, modify the trigger guard area where something like that doesn't

move easily. Of course, simply modifying the law so that anyone caught with bump stock or similar mechanism loses their right to own guns and spends a lot of time in prison will work too.

[Always Right]

24. Trigger guards don't move

In a typical firearm, your finger presses the trigger to fire it. To bump fire a gun, you instead press the trigger into your finger.

A bump stock functions works on that principal but is not necessary to actually do bump fire. You could use a stick or just your finger to bump fire. There are (or were if they have been taken down) lots of videos on youtube of people bump firing with just their finger.

Even if you were to shrink a trigger guard, it wouldn't prevent bump fire as the movement is in the area where the trigger moves back and you can't shrink that without disabling the gun.

[Hoyt]

7. I bet you'd like to see the suit. You probably have some bump stocks, maybe profit from them.

[Always Right]

12. I'm just here for the facts, not to debate.

If you look at every post I've made, you will see that all I've said is to correct some factual details.

No where have I advocated for or against any position. I was merely curious to see what was alleged, especially since so few details about the incident have been released. As the article said that the lawsuit was seeking class action status, I wondered what constituted the class.

As the suit was filed in a Federal Court, it is public record and available to anyone with a Pacer account (which I have) and for 10 cents a page. I figured someone had already pulled it and posted it. That would save me the effort of finding the case number and paying for it.

For the record, I have never owned a bump stock nor have I profited from them.

[Hoyt]

13. You've only made 10 and came in through the Gungeon. That tells me a lot about you.

[Always Right]

17. Everyone started at post 1

While my post count is low, that doesn't change the truth of anything I've said. Nor does it express where I sit politically.

At what post number and in what categories must I post before I'm worthy of not being insulted?

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. The genetic fallacy is a favorite 'go to' for those that have nothing else to counter with...

[fescuerescue]

146. On ANY talk board

I've found that people who have incredibly high post counts are usually the ones that offer the most cookie cutter and linear thinking posts.

Exceptions apply of course.

But I usually laugh out loud when the objection is simply low post count.

[Orrex]

92. "what post number...t before I'm worthy of not being insulted?"

Oh, maybe somewhere around 58K. I'll let you know.

[Reiyuki]

111. those posters tend to have a bad signal-to-noise ratio

Better to have a lower post count filled with good high value info than 100k tweets full of fluff.

Excluding the <50 post trolls of course

[Orrex]

114. Not sure if you're insulting me or not...

Hmm...

[Reiyuki]

118. Not saying you in particular, I mean in general on any forum. Nt

[Orrex]

122. Hmm... Now I'm *DEFINITELY* not sure...

[Always Right]

117. Almost to 50

I'd like to think that my posts have good high value with little fluff.

I try to supply links and pictures when appropriate too.

[Orrex]

121. This one goes to eleven.

[Adrahil]

94. Hoyt, stop it.

We get it. You hate guns and "gunners."

That's fine.

What's not fine is how you advance uniformed ideas and get disdainful about anyone who would dare to try and provide you with accurate technical information.

If you don't WANT technical information, then at least refrain from making technical claims about stuff you know nothing about.

[Hoyt]

95. What "technical information" have I provided that is not true? Yes, I do get ticked with gunners

stonewalling to protect their access to more guns, even when innocent people are being killed or bullied with the damn things.

[Always Right]

102. Example from earlier in this discussion

In post 70 of this discussion, you said.

"They advertise that guns make you a man, you need guns to survive, their guns are the best for urban wayfarer and are needed to survive in America, their weapons are military grade, and worse."

You used the term "military grade" as a technical term to imply that the guns were weapons of war and are some how worse than regular weapons because they are of the kind that the military uses.

However, there isn't any such thing as military grade. Everything in the military is designed to military specifications called 'mil specs' and they represent the standards and design of each piece of equipment used from beds to bags.

Mil specs exist to create interchangeability between manufacturers. So long as an item conforms to a mil spec, it should be exactly like every other item with that spec. Mil spec is a baseline standard agreed upon by a military committee and doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best and often it is a compromise of various factors, most notably cost. If we are going talk guns, then a good example was when the military selected a new handgun for the troupes back in the 80's. They had trials from various manufacturers and 2 guns qualified but one, the lower rated one, was selected for use as it was significantly less expensive and that gun became Mil spec. In that example, Mil spec didn't mean best, it meant cheapest but good enough.

The term "military grade" when not referring to a mil spec is 100 percent a marketing term and has no real meaning.

[Hoyt]

109. First, BS. Second that is what ads say. Third, I was not

replying to you. Finally, I don't care about your gun apologies.

The manufacturer's ads even show gunners dressed in military garb shooting the GD things.

[Always Right]

110. Correcting a mistake isn't an apology

I didn't realize that when you said "What "technical information" have I provided that is not true?", I must have missed the part where you only wanted Adrahil to reply. Incorrectly assumed you were sure you had not stated any untrue technical information and that anyone was free to point out your mistake so for that I apologize. (FYI, that is an apology.)

For the record, parroting an improper term doesn't make it any more correct so if you repeat someone else untrue technical information, then you have still provided untrue technical information.

[Hoyt]

124. Do any of these ads give the target (buyers) the idea the rifles are military spec?

You really cannot be as obtuse as you are pretending unless you are here to promote guns? The gun marketeers have you guys locked in.


From 3 years ago:

"The tactical coolness factor does, on the other hand, attract a lot of first-time gun buyers. Many of them are younger and unfamiliar with firearms, making them prime candidates to be unsure of what to look for or even what they want. Unlike many of the hunting demographic, these potential buyers will likely be interested only in tactical guns, and the military-ish looks and features will be a big selling point with them.

NSSF and its industry partners are marketing, in the industry’s own words, guns with “military-ish looks and features,” without regard to what its customers can do with these specialized weapons as they embark on their own “patrol” to control their “destiny” and mete out their own version of “justice,” whether in a school, movie theater, or other public setting.

"Gun companies like Freedom Group have made a decision: They are willing to risk future mass shootings by selling military-style assault weapons that private citizens have no reason to own. It will be up to the rest of us to expose this shameful record and hold the industry accountable"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-industry-hawks-milita_b_4609747.html


















Those photos ought to keep the gun-strokers busy awhile.

[Always Right]

139. Yes and no

Do any of these ads give the target (buyers) the idea the rifles are military spec?

I think that the ads imply military use but for anyone with military knowledge, they wouldn't be fooled as none of those guns pictured are used by the US Military (or any military as far as I know).

The second gun you pictured, the XM-109 is an interesting example you threw in as it isn't available to civilians (or the police as far as I know) and it is a prototype targeted (no pun intended) for sale to the US Military. The ad even mentions soldiers.

As far as military spec, I would expect that the vast majority of buyers would hope the guns are military spec because military spec means the guns conform to very specific dimensions and testing procedures so they know that all aftermarket parts, which are also military spec, will fit.

Just like when you go to the gas station to buy gas and see 92 octane rating on the pump, you know that it is ok to put in your car where the manufacturer calls for 92 octane, because they both your car manufacturer and the gas station used the same specs on determining octane ratings.

[Hoyt]

142. "Yes and no." LMAO. I guess the one that comes right out and says this gun "is destined

to be a tremendous war fighting asset in military arsenals" is not convincing enough for you. Sounds like it was written by Donald Trump.

More gunner BS.

Hell, my favorite is still the Man Card Ad one because that marketeer has you guys pegged. They know their market.

[Always Right]

149. The ads are puffery

I'm glad you found the ads amusing.

While they might imply the guns are military like, none of those guns are actually used by the military.

And of all those gun manufacturers, only Barrett, maker of the XM-109 gun, which is not available to anyone but the military (and that includes the police), is the only one of the group that actually sells anything to the military (but not that model).

When you see an attractive woman by a sports car ad and the implication that the guy will get women if he buys that car... do you think guys really believe that will happen?

[Adrahil]

132. The idea that it somehow "easy" for gunmakers to make changes preventing such devices.

Not only is that incorrect, but it ignores the nature of the AR-15 platform, and why it is so popular.... it is modular. It can be assembled from parts from any maker compliant to the basic spec of the gun.

So it's just the matter of some maker deciding to make a change to make it harder for bump stocks to be installed. If one, or MOST makers change their lower receivers, or modify the trigger guard to make the bump stocks not fit, it's just a matter of not buying one with such a change. And frankly, a shooter who doesn't want a bump stock (most of us) is certainly not going to want a lower receiver that is out of spec, or has an extra wide trigger guard, since we don;t want a bump stock anyway.

Also, it ignore the fact that until this shooting, bump stocks were not terribly popular. They are expensive for what they are. And for most shooters, they are just a way to waste a lot of ammo. Most ranges don't even allow them.

When people like me argue with you about technical details, and the efficacy of restrictions, maybe it's worth considering that we are trying to ensure any new regulations will actually DO something. The old AWB was almost useless. It was all about stuff that LOOKED scary, but had virtually no effect of the operation of the gun. I mean a BAYONET lug? Who the fuck cares? The only effective element was limit on magazine capacity.

I won't say there are NO gun owners here who are trying to stonewall any regulations (and I suspect some trolls from gun nut sites), but there are a lot of gun owners like me who DO want to figure out what realistic things we can do to improve the situation.

[Hoyt]

134. Oh, I agree and think all semi-autos need to be banned. As to modification to prevent bump stocks,

howsabout making it illegal to manufacture, sell or have one. Second, modify all future receivers and trigger to keep a bump stock from working. Finally, howsabout you guys stepping forward and supporting outlawing accessories that make these guns easier to hide and use to kill people until they are banned completely. And, show me some actually law-abiding gun owners that have some inkling of morality.

So, yes, I believe AR15s, etc., could be easily modified to prevent bump stocks from working. The fact you can't fathom how that might work, doesn't mean others couldn't figure it out easily. Hell, stick a 3 foot rod through the trigger area with one half extending on either side. Not only would that prevent your bump stock from working, but you can't hide the damn thing so easily. See -- it's not the friggin hard if you really want to think about it.

[Always Right]

136. Not impossible, more like impractical

If I stated that it was impossible to modify a semi auto such that you can't use a bump stock, I change that to be that it is impractical to do so.

Sure, you could attach a 3 foot rod to the trigger or encase the entire gun in concrete so you can't even touch the trigger or even weld the trigger in place so you can't fire the gun at all. Those modifications might prevent using a bump stock but they are all impractical modifications.

Yes, they would achieve your goal of making a semi auto unusable but the change wouldn't be acceptable to all gun owners.

[Hoyt]

137. Well, at least you are thinking and can see that it is possible to modify a rifle where a bump stock

won't work.

You gunners might cringe at the idea and whine to high heaven, but it would actually be quite easy just by modifying the trigger guard.

What would be even better is you guys actually petition the NRA to prevent this kind of crap, and call your legislators. You guys elect the NRA board of directors. So far, this is who the membership elects, and he's fine with people like Paddock:





?w=353&h=290&zoom=2

[Always Right]

138. I'm not part of "you guys"

You keep lumping me in with "you guys" when you refer to the NRA.

I am not presently an NRA member and I have no vote in who is on their board or any say in what their policies are.

While I was once an NRA member in the 90's, that was only because it was required at range I went to, which was the only range in town. I moved and haven't been to that range in nearly 20 years.

As for being possible to modify, I do agree it is possible but impractical and that any modifications would not be simple and unobtrusive.

[Hoyt]

143. You are a gun promoter. There are millions who support the NRA, but are too cheap to pay dues.

[Always Right]

151. Maybe I'm not a member because I disagree with them on things

In what way have I promoted anything?

Have I said buy this or buy that?

Have I said anyone needs a gun for anything?

Have I said anything what so ever to push any gun agenda?

I have merely stated factual information to correct inaccurate statements already made.

As for the NRA, dues are less than $3 a month. I suppose I should be insulted that you think so little of me that I couldn't afford to pay that if I choose to. In fact, I am not a member because I disagree with them on some issues.

I won't get into what those issues are as then I'd be taking a side and I've tried very hard to avoid taking a side and have stuck entirely with factual issues.

[ClarendonDem]

153. "Gun promoter"

What does that mean? Is everyone that supports an individual's right to own firearms that is protected by the Second Amendment a "gun supporter," or somehow not worthy of being a Democrat?

[RainCaster]

52. Its up to them. They are the smart ones who have been evading safety laws

So remove that liability shield for any weapon converted to a full automatic.

[Always Right]

57. Legally speaking, the weapons were not fully automatic.

A bump fire stock may seem like it makes the gun fully automatic but it does not meet the legal definition of a machine gun which requires more than one shot per function of the trigger and even with a bump fire stock, the gun only fires once per trigger pull.

That is why the ATF, under the Obama administration, approved bump fire stocks as being legal.

[jmg257]

9. Sue them for what? THIS lawsuit says couldn't happen without the stocks.

"would not have occurred with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self-defense,”

[Hoyt]

11. The bump stock is worthless without the AR15. Gun manufacturers, dealers and profiteers like

those who sell guns without conducting a background check should be open to suit because they advertise and create the atmosphere that helped cause the LV shooting.

As a gun-fancier, I am sure you are just fine with the NRA and other right wing organizations keeping pressure on Congress to stick behind the law that prevents gun profiteers from being sued.

[jmg257]

14. Then why does this lawsuit state otherwise? THAT'S the point, Hoyt.

We know the Semis are the issue, you just said it yourself.


I am against manufacturers being sued for selling legal products et. al. Congress legislates, not lawyers.

Curious what precedence this sets if that statement of theirs wins out.

[Hoyt]

16. Jeeezus. The lawsuit is filed against the bump stock manufacturers. Get you head out of your barrels

No lawsuit has been filed against the gun manufacturer or dealers because the NRA and gun-humpers too cheap to pay dues have backed laws preventing that (except in the case of defective products). My guess is, you too support those laws to preserve your access to more guns.

[jmg257]

18. I KNOW Hoyt. THIS lawsuit (their statement) puts ALL the blame on the stock guys!

READ IT AGAIN:


"would not have occurred with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self-defense,”

SO apparently the guns, even your dreaded ARs, are just fine - ITS THE STOCK'S FAULT.

Which is horse shit.

What laws are you talking about re: preserve access?

ETA:

“Paddock could not have injured so many people without a bump stock,” the complaint states. “Paddock may not have launched his military-style assault without a bump stock. There are people who were killed, injured, and suffered emotional distress who would not have been, if Paddock had not possessed a bump stock.”

[Hoyt]

21. If you were filing a law suit, wouldn't you write it that way. That's the way all lawsuits are

written.

Stop reading and analyzing written matters pointing at each word, while mouthing it. That's how gun-strokers misinterpret the 2nd Amendment.

The bump stock manufacturer, store that sold it, etc., and the gun manufacturer, dealer and other profiteers in the chain should be liable. But you guys have bribed right wingers to prohibit the latter.

[jmg257]

22. Ha - that'a a funny dig - I get it! Bet the other kids love you at recess!

What were we talking about again?

Oh yeah - I don't know how lawsuits are written, I never wrote one. I do know the bump stocks made it worse, but to exclusively blame them for the whole attack? Weird.

Seems to me that this one?...it takes pressure off the semis.

Your precious NRA will love it.

[Keefer]

29. Bump stocks are a legal product,

okayed by the ATF(E).

You can't sue someone for selling a legal product, unless that product malfunctions.

Nothing malfunctioned. It worked as it was designed to work.

When the government says they are a legal product, why does that give someone the right to sue the manufacturer for selling a legal product?

[Hoyt]

32. Keefer, look up how they brought down the Tobacco companies. Then look up PLCAA.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a special United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.

They'll take down the bump stock producers by showing they helped turn AR15s into weapons capable of killing and wounding over 400 people in a few minutes. At best, the bump stock producers will spend a ton trying to defend themselves. At worse, they'll pay enough damages to force them into bankruptcy.

That needs to happen with gun manufacturers, dealers and private sellers unloading their sick hobby.

Christ, the only thing worst than a gun-stroker is one who doesn't know what is being discussed.

[Keefer]

37. The tobacco companies got caught

hiding evidence. Besides you can still buy tobacco products. It doesn't seem to me they did a very good job of &quot bringing) down the Tobacco companies."

How am I a "gun-stroker"? Just because I am pointing out the fact bump stocks are a legal product?

How many guns do you think I own? How many bump stocks do you think I own?

For the record, I own zero of either.

I am simply pointing out that bump stocks are a legal product.

[Hoyt]

41. The gun companies are the same, they use the NRA and gun-humpers to hide behind. That needs to

change and the courts need to decide how much liability gun manufacturers and dealers should shoulder when massacres happen.

[Keefer]

46. You can't hold ANY manufacturer

liable for anything unless their product malfunctions. In this case, nothing malfunctioned. It functioned as advertised, and it got the blessing of the ATFE.

That could change, but as of the moment that carnage in Las Vegas happened, bump stocks were and still are legal.

[jmg257]

49. Wow - you will LOVE this, Hoyt...you will have to read some though...

"This lawsuit does not in anyway challenge the right of people to bear arms.
This lawsuit does not in any way challenge the right of responsible companies to operate a business of selling guns or lawful accessories.
This lawsuit is about the negligent sale & marketing of a product intended to circumvent and subvert federal firearms laws in a manner that facilitates criminal acts....it unfairly tarnishes the right of all law-abiding citizens to bear arms for lawful purposes including protection, hunting and other recreational activities."

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/579a2f5d893fc059a1159624/t/59dcf43718b27dbe38329441/1507652669158/Vegas-ClassActionComplaint.pdf

[Hoyt]

61. Exactly. Now the Gun Protection Act needs to repealed legislatively

Last edited Tue Oct 10, 2017, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

or by courts, so that gun manufacturers, dealers, etc. , can be similarly held liable for their actions creating an environment that allows the Paddocks to kill.

[ClarendonDem]

69. What did the manufacturers and dealers do

That you think subjects them to liability? They sold a legal product in a legal manner.

[Hoyt]

70. They advertise that guns make you a man, you need guns to survive, their

guns are the best for urban wayfarer and are needed to survive in America, their weapons are military grade, and worse.

Are you really that obtuse?

[ClarendonDem]

72. I like you Hoyt

But again you didn't answer the question. Perhaps I should restate for clarity - what did the manufacturers do that was illegal?

[Hoyt]

75. Look, Dem, there's civil liability and morality to consider. Gun profiteers are implicated.

[Always Right]

116. Lawsuits determine liability, not morality. - NT

[fescuerescue]

150. And coolaid advertises that a Giant Man will break down your wall

and make you feel refreshed.

But its just advertising so it's legal

[Always Right]

152. Yea, pretty much

The word is puffery

[Always Right]

67. Bankruptcy doesn't end production of items, it just changes who sells them

Should the bump fire stock maker run out of money defending the law suit and file bankruptcy, it would either file chapter 7 or chapter 11.

Under chapter 7, which is a liquidation, the assets of the company are sold to pay the creditors with secured creditors getting paid first and if there is anything left over then the unsecured creditors get paid pro rata. The company property sold would probably consist of inventory on hand and the patent on the bump stock. At the judicial sale, I'd expect a newly formed company, probably by the owners of the old company, and then they would be back in business again. Stock holders of a company are under no liability beyond the risk their stock becomes worthless.

In a chapter 11, a plan gets approved by the court to pay back creditors some portion of the debt and then it is business as usual, otherwise the company gets liquidated and the assets transfer to another company.

For example, in 2012, Hostess Brands, the manufacturer of the Twinkie snack cake, filed for bankruptcy. After selling out to Apollo Global Management and Metropoulos & Co, the Twinkie was back on store shelves about 8 months after Hostess filed for bankruptcy.

[Hoyt]

71. Yeah, but s potential buyer or producer has to factor in the liability for the next massacre.

[Always Right]

78. Yes, but not likely in the way you want

Any potential buyer would likely acknowledge there is liability and set up a corporation or limited liability company as the manufacturer.

That way they can pocket all the money while accepting none of the risks.

That is how all risky businesses do it.

[Hoyt]

80. I get it AlwaysRight, gun and accessory manufacturers, dealers and many gun owners are slimy SOBs

who will take advantage of every trick -- including supporting the NRA and laws -- to limit their liability for contributing to the killing of thousands of people.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONVINCE ME OF THAT. It's obvious these folks are no better than Trump, Bannon or racists and Nazis.

Hopefully, it will end up with the GD lethal accessories banned, a criminal conviction for anyone that uses them, and lead to repealing the law that supposedly prevents gun manufacturers from being sued for contributing to the killing and wounding of innocent people.

[Always Right]

86. Lots of industries take advantage of legal tricks

It isn't just the gun industry but all industries that take advantage of legal tricks, it is the nature of capitalism.

I do agree with you that criminals should be caught and punished.

As for the law banning gun manufacturers from being sued, the only thing that surprises me is that other industries haven't done the same thing to avoid vexatious litigation to effect judicial change when they can't achieve legislative change.

[Hoyt]

99. I'm sure the Trump Admin will likely followup on your recommendations.

[Always Right]

103. A prediction isn't a reccomendation

I can't say what Trump would do but I doubt any politician would do that on their own without significant lobbying of an industry and likely some example of abusive lawsuits to illustrate the point.

[LanternWaste]

85. Your absurd contention then is that pharmaceutical companies have never been sued

"You can't sue someone for selling a legal product, unless that product malfunctions..."

Your absurd contention then is that pharmaceutical companies have never been sued for selling a legal product which did not malfunction and worked as designed to work?

Sacred cows are a terrible waste of mind.

[Keefer]

93. If their drug causes harm,

why shouldn't they be sued?

In this case, the bump stocks were approved by the ATF as a legal add on to another legally available product. Both of those products were designed with a specific purpose and they functioned as advertised.

Now, let's say one of those bump stocks malfunctions and ruptures during use and rips the side of the users face off, or causes someone to lose an eye. Then the company would be responsible and should be sued.

Just as if a drug causes someone physical harm, (aside from the listed cautions, warnings, and side effects listed on the label), the manufacturer should be sued.

In the case of the bump stock manufacturer and the gun manufacturer, their products performed as advertised.

That's all I am saying.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. Guns are designed and built to do what PRIMARY thing?

[jmg257]

31. Fire projectiles.

[Eliot Rosewater]

39. to kill

[jmg257]

44. So other than with all the wounded - his functioned as designed?

The point?

[Eliot Rosewater]

45. In a sane world, you would be able to sue, very successfully , a company that

designs and sells a product designed to kill you or a family member.

[jmg257]

50. Welcome to America. Here we protect their ownership by the highest laws in the land. nt

[Always Right]

60. Do criminals shot by the police get to sue gun manufacturers too?

In your sane world where gun manufacturers are sued, very successfully, wouldn't that also mean that a criminal (well criminal's family) could sue a gun manufacturer, if that criminal were to be shot and killed by the police during the commission of a crime?

[ileus]

64. Save lives.

Most are designed and marketed as personal safety devices used to save lives.
Some are designed for target work.
Some are designed for competition.
Some are designed for hunting.
Still others are manufacured just for collectors purposes.


You don't actually think the government is going to let citizens own devices only designed to kill people do you?

Of course not.

[Drahthaardogs]

34. It's not the semi autos that are the problem

It's the fucking stupid high capacity magazines. We USED to have a law that limited it to ten rounds. Then all the nutters yamored about how size didn't matter, so that law went away. Thank you GOP and NRA for being irresponsible and borderline insane. Can we all agree now size does matter?

Just FYI, I grew up out west on a ranch. Guns were a part of life. A tool we used a lot from killing rattlesnakes to processing a beef and every thing on between.

I used to hunt a lot and have taken more trophy deer, elk, and antelope than most hunters have seen. I lived in Alaska for 20 years and hunted moose, caribou, and sheep. I am no stranger to guns.

I see no reason for high capacity mags, which are instruments of war to exist. I also cannot understand how anyone in their right mind could oppose universal background checks. And yes, if you buy 25 assault rifles in 365 days, I think the ATF should pay you a visit. It's fucking c'mon sense.

[jmg257]

40. Agreed - that hi-capacity mags are also an issue.

The issue will always be the millions & millions in criculation.

NY tried some AW AND mag control through registration.

[LanternWaste]

83. Happens to pharma companies rather often...

"I am against manufacturers being sued for selling legal products et. al..."

Happens to pharma companies rather often... never see the same righteous, zealous and overly-hysterical indignation in those threads as I do in these.

I get it... we hold our sacred cows to much lower standards, while alleging and pretending otherwise.

[jmg257]

90. Pharma, huh? Don't think I have ever posted in a thread about them.

Last edited Wed Oct 11, 2017, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Their products 'malfunction' - then have at it.
But to try to legislate or enforce a one-sided policy by baseless suing of companies to harm them, the whole point of the PLCAA? No thanks.


Is THAT why the pharmas are getting sued? If people want to get "righteous, zealous and overly-hysterical" over it if it were, well good for them - they obviously care enough to bother.


*NO cow was harmed in forming this opinion (sacred or otherwise).

[Always Right]

15. Bump fire and bump stocks are not limited to AR-15 style guns.

Pursuant to Federal Law, all gun manufacturers and dealers have to conduct a background check before selling any gun to an individual. The only time a dealer or manufacturer is not required to do a background check is when selling to another dealer or to a manufacturer.

What dealers and manufacturers are you referring to that should be sued because they didn't conduct a background check?

[Hoyt]

19. You don't get it. As far as those not performing back ground checks, I'm referring to gun-humpers

like yourself who sell your guns without background checks.

As to suites, I'm referring to laws gun-humpers helped enact that prohibits suits against gun profiteers -- like manufacturers and dealers -- so that your access to more guns is not disturbed by making them liable for the killing their products enable. They should be liable just like tobacco companies for creating this environment.

[Always Right]

23. Who said I sell guns without background checks?

I've never said that I do or don't own guns, merely that I have firearms knowledge.

In my state, a background check is not required for an individual to individual sale provided that both are residents of my state and that the sale is not prohibited by law.

In fact, if an individual in my state did in fact want to do a background check to do a sale to another individual, there is no way that an individual could even do a background check. I suspect that if there were a way, it would in short order be used for other purposes, like to check on prospective boy/girl friends, rental tenants, employees and such.

[Hoyt]

35. It's kind of Obvious.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. Is that you, Fred Colon?

"Sergeant Colon had a broad education. He'd been to the school of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[Hoyt]

98. He's not defending guns and gunners because he's altruistic.

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Kindly point out what's factually inaccurate in his posts. Show your work

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. ..which request got the expected reply:

[Always Right]

120. Is not immediately replying to a post I didn't see til now, considered awkward silence? - NT

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. My apologies for being unclear- that was meant for your interlocutor, not you

[Marengo]

108. What evidence do you have that poster sells guns without background checks?

[Hoyt]

125. Most of you gunners do, that's why you want to protect private sales without background checks.

[Marengo]

128. No evidence, eh? If you have any integrity, you'll retract that accusation. Additionally, you can...

Provide a link or cite to where I have stated I "want to protect private sales without background checks".

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. Don't hold your breath- that one has been 'all advertising and no product' for years

Argumentum ad nauseam is his thing, and by FSM he's gonna stick with it!

[Always Right]

119. In what way is it obvious?

Do you have any personal knowledge or evidence that I've ever sold a gun without a background check?

If not, what way is it obvious?

Merely having firearm knowledge is not proof of selling guns without background checks otherwise everyone who ever served in the military would obviously be guilty of that.

In fact, I'd say that in this day and age, anyone selling a gun without a doing a background check (even if legal) would be crazy because if that gun was ever used in a crime later, they would end up as a defendant to a lawsuit.

While you seem to take personal offence at having your facts corrected, do you think I'm crazy?

[Hoyt]

126. I replied to what you wrote #23-"I've never said that I do or don't own guns." Again, it's obvious.

Do I have to explain everything to gunners? Christ.

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. "Again, it's obvious." Only to you...

[Hoyt]

133. I know, all the Gungeoneers are just acting like gunners. None have any guns, don't want anyone

else to have any, and think the NRA, gun manufacturers, dealers, and other gun profiteer should be deemed terrorist organizations.

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. Perhaps someday you'll learn that "my firm belief(s)" and "things that are demonstrably true"...

...are not equivalent statements.

[Always Right]

140. Gun sales without background checks

I take it that you think every gun sale absolutely needs a background check on the buyer?

Would you allow any exceptions?

[Hoyt]

141. No, because gunners will sell to anyone with a fistful of cash. All transfers need

to go through a FFL, period. No exceptions because you guys -- gunners -- have not shown your are responsible enough to be given a break. Christ, some of you guys still think Randy Weaver should have been allowed to transfer illegal guns to member of the Ayran Nation (Nazis and racists).

[Always Right]

147. All transfers have to go through a FFL?

You said that there should be no exceptions and all transfers need to go through a FFL.

No exception for a gun owner turning in a gun at a "gun buyback"? You would require a FFL at the gun buyback?

No exception for when a police department issues a gun to an officer? You would require the officer to go to an FFL for the transfer?

How do you define transfer? If a guy loans his brother a gun to go to the range with but the gun does not attend, is that a transfer?

Again, you have lumped me with "you guys". Before that was an NRA member. Now that I've stated that I'm not an NRA member, now it is because I'm a gunner.

What is a gunner? Anyone with firearms knowledge?

[Hoyt]

148. Jeeez, go post to someone else. You are too obtuse to own or speak on behalf of your guns. n/t

[Always Right]

154. You said all

If you didn't mean all transfers without exception, then why say that?

I understand this is an emotional subject for you so you keep giving emotional responses.

However, if you are going to advocate laws, then you should be precise in what the law says and knowledgeable in what you want to regulate.

When "non gunners" write gun laws using vague, inexact terms and improper terms, they can't be surprised when "loopholes" are exploited.

I've done nothing but correct inaccuracies, provide technical information and education on the subject matter, things that could be used against "gunners" and you continue to thank me with insults. I wonder what you would say if you really didn't like someone.

[rockfordfile]

144. Are you a NRA member? I think you lost your way

[Always Right]

155. Not a member.

[ileus]

62. Unless it's made for an AK47, then it'd be useless without an AK.

[samir.g]

104. you can bump-fire without the stock. I've seen it all over youtube

getting rid of the stock changes nothing, we need to get rid of the weapons.

[jmg257]

8. Great - win this, so bump stocks are THE culprit, and semi-autos are off the hook.

“This horrific assault did not occur, could not occur, and would not have occurred with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self-defense,”

Uh huh. Thanks for that.

[Weekend Warrior]

26. Why would this mean that anything else is "off the hook."

This is good news.

[jmg257]

27. Because, the way I read it (w/o seeing the complaint) it states that the guns were not the issue

just the stocks.


"“This horrific assault...would not have occurred with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self-defense,”


MAYBE they define 'conventional' somewhere else as not meaning assault-style weapons.

[Weekend Warrior]

28. It's a correct statement.

It lets no one off the hook.

Additionally, with the special protections for manufacturers they will have to tailor this case directly at the bump stock. They don't get to sue here and then move to the manufacturers.

[jmg257]

51. Ah I see your point about this is the end game, as it gets even better for the gunners & builders...

"This lawsuit does not in anyway challenge the right of people to bear arms.
This lawsuit does not in any way challenge the right of responsible companies to operate a business of selling guns or lawful accessories.
This lawsuit is about the negligent sale & marketing of a product intended to circumvent and subvert federal firearms laws in a manner that facilitates criminal acts....it unfairly tarnishes the right of all law-abiding citizens to bear arms for lawful purposes including protection, hunting and other recreational activities."

You are right that they would have a hard time getting a firearm manufacture lawsuit through - precedence has been set.

[spanone]

10. K&R...

[malaise]

20. Hope they sue the magazine manufacturers

They sell death

[Weekend Warrior]

25. Good. Now remove the special protections for gun manufacturers. nt.

[Always Right]

33. Link to complaint

I found the complaint here:

[link:https://static1.squarespace.com/static/579a2f5d893fc059a1159624/t/59dcf43718b27dbe38329441/1507652669158/Vegas-ClassActionComplaint.pdf|]

In reading through it, I noticed that the class of people suing is those with emotional injuries from the event and that anyone with a physical injury is excluded.

So anybody actually shot at the event is not a party to this lawsuit.

[Hoyt]

36. They'll be suing shortly, don't you think? I bet a lot of people and groups file suits too.

[Always Right]

43. I am sure there will be lots of law suits

Though I doubt there will be any more against the maker of bump stocks for two reasons.

First, lawsuits are about money and the bump stock maker has no real assets and makes a plastic product. That means any recovery would come from insurance and it wouldn't surprise me if this small time manufacturer is basically a warehouse to store their made in china plastic product so they carry little insurance. As I expect that the cost of the already filed law suit will bankrupt the company, I don't expect anyone else will spend any money to sue them.

Second, since this lawsuit isn't really about money as there isn't much to be gained financially, the lawsuit is really about carving out an exception to the law against suing gun manufacturers. The law also protects "manufacturers of a component part of a firearm" so the complaint calls a bump fire stock an accessory as opposed to a component. If the lawsuit gets far enough, that will be a crucial ruling by the court because if is determined to be a component, then the named plaintiffs will be responsible for all of the bump stock manufacturer's legal bill, just like what happened to the parents of a victim in the Colorado Movie Theater Shooting.

What I really expect is lawsuits to be filed against the deep pockets, in particular against the Mandalay Bay hotel as they have the biggest pockets, probably the county where the event was held, probably the band itself, and of course the shooter's estate.

[Gothmog]

112. Thank you for posting this link to the complaint

[petronius]

38. The PLCAA refers to suits against makers of "qualified" products, which it defines

as firearms, ammunition, or "a component part of a firearm or ammunition." So it would seem to (not-a-lawyer) me that whether or not the PLCAA applies would hinge on the definition of a "component part." I would take that to mean something essential, without which the firearm or ammunition would cease to function. If that's the case, and since bump stocks are clearly optional, I suspect that the PLCAA won't apply here...

[Hoyt]

42. Agree. The PLCAA shouldn't apply to guns either. It allows gun manufacturers and profiteers to

escape liability artificially, even though they are largely responsible for the current gun environment through their advertisements, products, lobbying, support of NRA, obfuscation, threats, etc.

[Always Right]

47. Stocks are not optional

An AR-15 will not function without a stock as the buffer tube within the stock contains a spring and a buffer that gets pushed back by the bolt carrier as a spent casing gets ejected.

Also, rifles need to be at least 26 inches long and have a 16 inch barrel. That means that the rest of the gun needs to be at least 10 inches long to be legal. So while I would agree that a bump stock is not required, having a stock is not optional.

So that leaves the court having to decide if a particular stock is a component part while an aftermarket stock is still a component or an accessory.

Now if the part in question was some sort of add on like a bipod or forward grip, then the accessory versus component argument would be an easier to win battle.

[petronius]

53. Huh, good point! If a stock is a stock is a stock, and a stock

is an essential component, then it does get murkier...

Welcome to DU, by the way!

[jmowreader]

73. No, but there are a wide variety of stocks for this rifle

http://www.primaryarms.com/MCategories+AR-15-Stocks

These guys carry four pages worth of AR-15 stocks. If one particular stock - one that turns an AR-15 into a select-fire weapon - is banned, AR-15 users will still have a very good selection of stocks to choose from.

[Always Right]

79. Yes, there are lots of other choices for a stock

The discussion was not "is there an alternative stock" but rather "is a stock a component or accessory", with the difference being that the manufacturer is shielded from liability or not.

[former9thward]

48. This suit will go nowhere.

The federal government specifically approved bump stocks in June, 2010. A fact that many in this thread are ignoring but the courts won't.

[coolsandy]

54. Then sue the Federal Government. Sue every Congressperson who voted for it and the President who

signed the law.

[Always Right]

55. The law was enacted in 1934 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president.

I don't think that there is anyone to sue as the law was the National Firearms Act and it was passed in 1934 and you can't sue the Federal Government over it as it has sovereign immunity.

In the National Firearms Act, a machine gun is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) and it says:

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machine gun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The ATF, under the Obama administration, ruled that the bump fire stock is legal because the gun still shoots only one shot per single function of the trigger, thus, it doesn't create a machine gun, rather a bump fire stock assists with you bouncing your finger off the trigger.

[Nevernose]

63. Youre right: gun bans work!

This guy couldn’t get fifty fully automatic guns easily, so he had to resort to buying work-arounds. You are absolutely goddamned right!

I can’t wait to ban high capacity magazines next!

[Always Right]

65. I haven't advocated a position for or against anything

If you are going to talk bans, you should define what you mean by "work".

Did a gun ban work if people were still killed using a work-around for a banned item or did the ban work because the banned item wasn't used?

[Nevernose]

66. You said it

Not me.

[Always Right]

68. I think you confused me with someone else.

Coolsandy said to sue Congress and the President who signed the law and sue the federal government.

I merely said that the law happened in 1934 and they aren't around to sue and you can't sue the federal government because it has sovereign immunity.

[Gothmog]

56. If these devices are not guns according to the ATF, then they are not protected

[Always Right]

58. The law protects components of guns, not just guns

As gun components are protected, the initial question for the court to decide is this stock a component, thus protected or an accessory (as alleged by the complaint) and therefore not entitled to protection.

As an AR-15 needs a stock to function, though not necessarily a bump fire stock, I predict that it will be covered by the law and thus, protected (assuming the manufacturer can afford the legal bills for the suit to get that far).

[Gothmog]

113. The rationale for the Obama ATF to not regulate this device is that it is not a gun

That same rationale may apply to the tort liability shield http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gun-control-group-sues-bump-stock-makers-sellers-50390232

The gun industry has broad protections from lawsuits. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted in 2005, protecting gunmakers and dealers from being held liable whenever a crime is committed with a firearm.

However, in this case, Gardiner said, that liability wouldn't apply because Slide Fire manufactures neither firearms nor ammunition.

[Always Right]

115. The rational for not regulating is that does not meet the definition of machine gun conversion part

The ATF regulates more than just guns, so you can't properly say that it wasn't regulated because it was not a gun.

When using the device, the trigger gets manipulated once per shot, thus legally it doesn't convert a gun to a machine gun. There was a similar device called the Atkins Accelerator but that device included a spring so the ATF said it was a conversion device because the device in itself was now the trigger.

As for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, it protects more than guns and ammunition but components of firearms so it is up to the court to determine if the bump stock is a component or an accessory (as Gardiner, the co-president of the Brady Center is a sponsor of the lawsuit, suggests).

[doc03]

76. How do you sue someone for a product that performed just

as it was designed to do?

[Atman]

81. Designed to turn a legal device into a legal one?

I think that's a tough argument to make.

[Doreen]

77. Hell, why not?

Obviously the Bump Makers profited from the victims. The victims were obviously used as test victims to prove the guns work properly and gun humpers need to go buy all of these guns. The victims did not apply to be test subjects, they were offered no pay to be test subjects, and they were not offered hazard pay. The victims payed for the Bump Makers money from this test by having their lives changed in a negative way. So maybe they should get paid.

[Kingofalldems]

82. Looks like the gunners not liking this one.

[HAB911]

87. the gunners don't like anything

other than bullet emissions

[jmg257]

91. Which ones aren't digging it?

[Kingofalldems]

96. That's not allowed here.

Nice try though!

[jmg257]

97. Ah - gotcha - that would be call-out? Strange, but understood - I guess.

[Alice11111]

101. Good! Good!💰The only way to stop it🔫is take their 💸.

It is the one thing they understand!

[samir.g]

105. The stocks are meaningless, the guns have to go

Any semi-auto can be bump-fired without a special stock. Eliminating the stocks won't stop people from bump-firing.

There was a guy on youtube bump-firing a WWII Colt 45 using his belt-loop.

[Always Right]

123. Was it a Colt 1911 in .45acp rather than a Colt 45?

I don't think a Colt 45 can be bump fired as it is a single action revolver.

I suspect you meant a Colt 1911, which is has been around for over 100 years, since 1911.

[bluestarone]

107. the way i look at it is

loopholes are loopholes are loopholes the great American way

[LW1977]

127. If only they could sue tinfoil nutjobs who think ot was a hoax.

[rockfordfile]

145. It Would be good if they could succeed. It straighten them up.

[JDC]

156. Big K/R