Other State CA is at it again.

[teflon6string]

"Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel said Wednesday that victims and families in the Poway, California, synagogue shooting have adequately alleged that Smith & Wesson, the nation's largest gunmaker, knew its AR-15-style rifle could be easily modified into a machine-gun-like or an assault weapon in violation of state law"

I had no idea AR15s were so easily converted.

I suppose my vehicles can all be easily converted into mass-killing machines too. So using that "woke" logic, auto and truck manufacturers should all be sued into oblivion whenever some evil lunatic slips a cog and plows into a crowd. Further, virtue-posturing democrats should constantly seek to ban motor vehicle ownership for everyone (except for the rocket surgeon politicians who come up with this foolishness).

 

[gmerkt]

people that I know from the east coast would never think to sue the gunmaker for the act committed by the shooter;

Until lawyers start whispering in their ears.

In the news, it's all about "showing that big gun business can't get away with avoiding responsibility." No, it's really about deep pockets.

I wonder, how long will it be before individual sellers of guns become targets of liability lawsuits.

 

[RobMa]

Until lawyers start whispering in their ears.

In the news, it's all about "showing that big gun business can't get away with avoiding responsibility." No, it's really about deep pockets.

I wonder, how long will it be before individual sellers of guns become targets of liability lawsuits.

I'm sure they already thought about pursuing that as well… But individual sellers probably don't have deep enough pockets for them to waste their time yet.

 

[Idaho44]

Bartenders are well known sources of drunk driving mayhem!

 

[gmerkt]

But individual sellers probably don't have deep enough pockets for them to waste their time yet.

YET is the operative word. Law schools keep cranking out the oversupply of hungry graduates, it will get down to that. They will check property tax records, find out who has a loan and who doesn't. Then go after the "doesn't."

 

[Knebel]

What. Once ownership is transfered, its the owners responsibility. Is homedepot responsible if someone buys a hammer and hits someone on the head with it????

 

[sobo]

Those "peacekeepers" should know as well as other nations and their leaders (Chinese) how well armed American citizens are so if they're smart they will think twice about sending people here unless they first send them to cities were people are mindless sheep who will obey the will and mindset of the anti-gunners and those who would seek the opportunity to disarm the American people.

Admiral Yamamoto knew better...

Said something about invading the American mainland would be disastrous for Japan because "...there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"...

 

[Jonnyuma]

Its always some ambulance chasing lawyer who says "I can get you justice." Which is really the lawyer saying "I can get rich."

From the article, it appears that our friends at the Brady Campaign solicited the victims for the gig.

Gotta wonder if they got the job because they were low-bidder... taking the smallest commission on the deal?

I'm guessing they did.

If the gun store sold the gun illegally, as the lawsuit alleges, l think they may not fare so well in this. Was it against CA law to sell an AR to a 19 year old in 2019?

 

[GWS]

An 18 year old can buy an AR in the PRK but it has to be a neutered model
(non-detachable magazine, fixed stock etc.)

 

[SonicBlue03]

Admiral Yamamoto knew better...

Said something about invading the American mainland would be disastrous for Japan because "...there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"...

Fun fact, his grandson graduated from USNA. He was in my ex-wife's class. Funny (hilarious) dude, smart AF.

 

[Bushman]

Bartenders are well known sources of drunk driving mayhem!

I took a course on a whim many years ago and bot my class 13 mixologist license. Bartenders can be held liable for over serving but are usually poor and thus not sued. I never worked as one, just thought it would be fun and had vacation to burn.

 

[Xrperry]

Admiral Yamamoto knew better...

Said something about invading the American mainland would be disastrous for Japan because "...there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"...

Not to mention a few pistols, the anti gunners in the USA don't understand how big of an asset it is to have so many armed people here.

 

[WAW44]

It's the deceptive marketing loophole again. It's a good approach for the plaintiff.

Case is Goldstein v Earnest


Grab a cup of coffee, and put your thinking cap on.

Here is the complaint: https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/97/ec/9cbe73454666bca09578e528b3d6/brady-poway-complaint.pdf
Here is the recent ruling: https://brady-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Minute-Order-7-2-21-S0499865.PDF

I have only skimmed the ruling and not the complaint, but can't find the "easily converted to assault weapon" argument.

 

[ma96782]

I took a course on a whim many years ago and bot my class 13 mixologist license. Bartenders can be held liable for over serving but are usually poor and thus not sued. I never worked as one, just thought it would be fun and had vacation to burn.

YES......
Because, most jurisdictions have a LAW in place......that forbids serving of alcohol to a "drunk and/or alcoholic" that comes in. Thus, if you serve the person.....you've broken the LAW and can be held accountable.

That being said......YES, telling "when" a person has had too much, can be a problem sometimes.

AND THEN......
The bartender might be poor but the bar's owner has money. As the owner's employee.....well, there you go. Just like with Police Officers. The City has the big bucks.

BUT.....it follows the same thinking......
If there is a BGC Law in place and you (the FFL) don't do the BGC but deliver the firearm anyway......OMG!.



BUT THEN......
I'm NOT saying that this is what happened with this current law suit in California.

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

In the complaint.....

4. The incident was foreseeable.

LOL.....Rrrrreally.....







Aloha, Mark

PS......BUT......note what #8 of the complaint says.

Claims that the Gun Shop sold the rifle in violation of CA Law. Requirement for a Hunting Lic.

Not knowing CA LAW.......well, there you go.

BUT.....most of us are probably more concerned about.....how is it/was it.....Smith and Wesson's fault?

Wasn't the firearm "CA Compliant" to begin with?
IF....it was.....how are "modifications" the fault of the original gun maker?
Was it "too easy" to modify into a non-CA compliant firearm?
Define...."easy"?

 

[WAW44]

Break between meetings, I found it. Here how it is S&W's fault.

Here you go... yes, they are serious.....


California has recognized that a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that includes "[a] pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" is highly dangerous and, for this reason, is a prohibited "assault weapon." Cal. Pen. Code. §§ 30515(a)(1)(A); 30605. 45.

A pistol grip is prohibited in semi-automatic centerfire rifles because it: a) enables individuals like the Shooter to more easily handle and aim a semiautomatic centerfire rifle like the Rifle; b) is useful when engaging in a rapid-fire, mass shooting scenario, like a mass attack on people; c) serves little to no benefit regarding lawful uses of such firearms.

SMITH & WESSON designed the Rifle in a way that enabled purchasers, including would-be mass shooters like the Shooter, who wanted an assault weapon prohibited by California law, to easily have one by modifying the Rifle. 47. Tutorials for modification methods are readily available from online sources.

48. SMITH & WESSON designed the Rifle with a slightly angled pistol grip inside an easily modified or removable grip-cover, resembling a shark fin, that was attached directly behind the trigger of the Rifle. 49. SMITH & WESSON made the grip-cover with specific materials and in certain locations so that the Rifle could be easily modified, including by cutting or otherwise removing it, so that Rifle had a prohibited pistol grip and was a prohibited assault weapon. 50. SMITH & WESSON's design choice enabled the Shooter to remove the grip-cover to utilize the pistol grip and transform the weapon into an assault rifle that was prohibited under California law because of its efficacy in mass shootings like the Incident.


Yes, you read it right, the mere fact that the shooter removed the CA compliant stock and attached a pistol grip made it a "assault rifle" and S&W is liable because the design allows for such a murderous modification.

I'm curious why S&W didn't argue that the CA compliant stock was surely reviewed by CA government that ensures compliance and deemed acceptable, including any alleged ease of modification.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Break between meetings, I found it. Here how it is S&W's fault.

Here you go... yes, they are serious.....


California has recognized that a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that includes "[a] pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" is highly dangerous and, for this reason, is a prohibited "assault weapon." Cal. Pen. Code. §§ 30515(a)(1)(A); 30605. 45.

A pistol grip is prohibited in semi-automatic centerfire rifles because it: a) enables individuals like the Shooter to more easily handle and aim a semiautomatic centerfire rifle like the Rifle; b) is useful when engaging in a rapid-fire, mass shooting scenario, like a mass attack on people; c) serves little to no benefit regarding lawful uses of such firearms.

SMITH & WESSON designed the Rifle in a way that enabled purchasers, including would-be mass shooters like the Shooter, who wanted an assault weapon prohibited by California law, to easily have one by modifying the Rifle. 47. Tutorials for modification methods are readily available from online sources.

48. SMITH & WESSON designed the Rifle with a slightly angled pistol grip inside an easily modified or removable grip-cover, resembling a shark fin, that was attached directly behind the trigger of the Rifle. 49. SMITH & WESSON made the grip-cover with specific materials and in certain locations so that the Rifle could be easily modified, including by cutting or otherwise removing it, so that Rifle had a prohibited pistol grip and was a prohibited assault weapon. 50. SMITH & WESSON's design choice enabled the Shooter to remove the grip-cover to utilize the pistol grip and transform the weapon into an assault rifle that was prohibited under California law because of its efficacy in mass shootings like the Incident.


Yes, you read it right, the mere fact that the shooter removed the CA compliant stock and attached a pistol grip made it a "assault rifle" and S&W is liable because the design allows for such a murderous modification.

I'm curious why S&W didn't argue that the CA compliant stock was surely reviewed by CA government that ensures compliance and deemed acceptable, including any alleged ease of modification.

Actually, to get really technical, Eugene Stoner should be the one in the hot seat, EVERY AR pattern rifle ever built ( with few exceptions) uses the exact same "Pistol Grip" pattern and to hold S&W liable exclusively is a pretty big stretch!

 

[PointyEndOut]

Any of the Jewish people that I know from the east coast would never think to sue the gunmaker for the act committed by the shooter; they would rest all of the responsibility on said shooter and the fact that Commiefornia allows this speaks for itself...

Speaking of any group of people as monolithic in thinking is a poor example.

 

[ma96782]

Me thinks.....
That the lawyers would have liked (or they'll pretend, not saying that it would have REALLY satisfied anyone but)......

A differently designed receiver.

So that, NOTHING could be used from an "assault rifle" and put onto a CA compliant rifle.

Yeah....remember the old COLT ARs would not accept the same trigger pins of a military version. And the uppers didn't have the front push pin release. And don't forget about the receiver block.

BUT THEN......
COLT was called out by the buying public for those bubblegum moves.

Aloha, Mark

 

[BAJ475]

Admiral Yamamoto knew better...

Said something about invading the American mainland would be disastrous for Japan because "...there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"...

Didn't he also warn about awaking a sleeping giant? Smart but not smart enough? But maybe not, looking at how Japan is today. After further research it appears that the sleeping giant quote is merely a Hollywood film statement and the blade of grass quote may be the same. But even though they may not be attributable to Yamamoto, that does not mean that they are not correct. When Beto comes for our guns he should expect an AR with a 30 rnd mag behind every blade of grass.