Gun maker Kahr to pay record damage claim

[Trlsmn]

This is not a case of Kahr selling a gun to someone legally that used it for evil deeds. It is also not a case where a criminal obtained a gun from them through nefarious actions. This is a case where the willingly and knowingly provided a firearm to a convicted felon without taking basic safety precautions. If I own a gun and my ex-con/felon brother-n-law breaks into my home and steals my gun while i am at work and then uses it for evil deeds I do not consider myself to hold any responsibility. If I hand him the gun and say "I know you are not supposed to have one of these so do not do anything bad with it" and then he commits a crime I feel i would be at fault.

Got any laws to back that up? Remember court is about law and only law. If there is no law that says Kahr must do background checks and drug testing on employees then no law has been broken. Feelings and common sense are fine but in court you need black and white written law.

 

[spider]

Kahr, has a lot of money I'm pretty sure they didn't want this to continue anymore, pretty rockstar status.

 

[cyclesarge]

Got any laws to back that up? Remember court is about law and only law. If there is no law that says Kahr must do background checks and drug testing on employees then no law has been broken. Feelings and common sense are fine but in court you need black and white written law.

Why would Kahr pay if they didn't have to? If it was just to win favor in "the court of public opinion" why not do it 10 years ago? Or better yet, Kahr's lawyers could have said, "there is no law, you have no case, we're right, you're wrong, now GO AWAY!" ten years ago.

e.t.a.
Upon further consideration there may not be a law that says specifically that a gun company has to do a BGC, or not hire a convicted criminal to assemble their guns. But ANY corporation has a basic obligation to operate in a manner that is safe to the public.

 

[Stomper]

Why would Kahr pay if they didn't have to? If it was just to win favor in "the court of public opinion" why not do it 10 years ago? Or better yet, Kahr's lawyers could have said, "there is no law, you have no case, we're right, you're wrong, now GO AWAY!" ten years ago.

Because in American "business mentality", it would have cost more in legal fees defending their position than the settlement cost... seems warped, but in a "business sense" it ALWAYS comes down to the "bottom line".

 

[cyclesarge]

Because in American "business mentality", it would have cost more in legal fees defending their position than the settlement cost... seems warped, but in a "business sense" it ALWAYS comes down to the "bottom line".

That's not really warped at all. But, if that's the case, wouldn't it have been cheaper to pay $600,000 10 years ago? Before paying their lawyers for 10 years of working on this, not to mention the 10 years of bad press they got.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Got any laws to back that up? Remember court is about law and only law. If there is no law that says Kahr must do background checks and drug testing on employees then no law has been broken. Feelings and common sense are fine but in court you need black and white written law.

You are mistaking criminal activity with civil liability. Letting my brother drive my car is not illegal...but if he has an accident and kills someone and they find that I allowed him to have my car knowing he had no license I could very easily be found liable for damages even though I committed no direct crime. You also might want to remember that it IS a crime to provide a known felon with a firearm.

Seems to me like Kahr felt they would not be able to avoid civil liability or the bad press that would come with it even if they could avoid criminal charges of any sort.

 

[Trlsmn]

Why would Kahr pay if they didn't have to? If it was just to win favor in "the court of public opinion" why not do it 10 years ago? Or better yet, Kahr's lawyers could have said, "there is no law, you have no case, we're right, you're wrong, now GO AWAY!" ten years ago.

e.t.a.
Upon further consideration there may not be a law that says specifically that a gun company has to do a BGC, or not hire a convicted criminal to assemble their guns. But ANY corporation has a basic obligation to operate in a manner that is safe to the public.

Yes of course they would pay even if they violated no law, anyone can sue anyone for anything they like, it still costs money even if you have broken no law. Look at it this way if Kahr's combined legal costs for the case was $1000 per hour it would only take 600 hours to equal the amount they paid to settle the dispute. No if they had gone to court they would have paid much more than that and then possibly the cost of appeals court and hey maybe even state supreme court. If Kahr was to lose it open them up to further lawsuits down the road. Settling for a cash value is not a court case admission of liability.

 

[cyclesarge]

If Kahr was to lose it open them up to further lawsuits down the road. Settling for a cash value is not a court case admission of liability.

Good point, it sounds like there are several other guns out their that went through the employee too (all in the hands of dirt bags), so they may be looking at that as well.

 

[Kevatc]

You are mistaking criminal activity with civil liability. Letting my brother drive my car is not illegal...but if he has an accident and kills someone and they find that I allowed him to have my car knowing he had no license I could very easily be found liable for damages even though I committed no direct crime. You also might want to remember that it IS a crime to provide a known felon with a firearm.

Seems to me like Kahr felt they would not be able to avoid civil liability or the bad press that would come with it even if they could avoid criminal charges of any sort.

Exactly the point I was going to make.

 

[bugeye]

Can you imagine what a field day the lawyers against kahr would have with a jury if this case had gone to trial. Point out that Kahr employed, and granted an ease of theft to, someone who could not even legally buy a gun? The discovery phase would have granted the anti Kahr law team access to all employment records and related emails at the company, and it is hard to believe there wasn't some dissention about who they were hireing? The out of court settlement was their best option, and it was enough so I'm sure they learned something from this and will fix this problem. In this case I think the legal system worked pretty well.

 

[8ball]

If you are Kahr, a company owned by a notoriously secretive and authoritarian religious cult whose leader is a felon, and whose ownership has been obscured using shelf companies, are you really going to let a lawyer do discovery on your corporate documents?

$600k is small change compared to the damage this could have done to Kahr.