Gun victim plans takeover revenge on manufacturer

by ignored_one 18 Replies latest social current

• 

  ignored_one

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,2763,1239748,00.html

  Gun victim plans takeover revenge on manufacturer

  Dan Glaister Wednesday June 16, 2004

  The Guardian A teenager paralysed by a gun accident 10 years ago is planning to buy the company that makes the weapon fired in the incident at a bankruptcy auction tomorrow.

  Brandon Maxfield, now 17, was left paralysed when a babysitter fired a handgun owned by his parents.

  Last year a jury awarded him $51m (£27.8m) damages, of which the gun manufacturer was made liable for $23m.

  The following day Bryco Arms filed for bankruptcy. But the Maxfields' lawyers became suspicious when a $150,000 bid to buy the company was made by a former plant foreman.

  At the same time as Bruce Jennings, the owner of Bryco, declared that he planned to retire from the business, his wife applied for a firearms sales licence.

  Mr Maxfield is appealing on a website (brandonsarms.org) for donations to help him buy the company, which specialises in cheap firearms known as "Saturday night specials".

  He plans to melt down the stock of 60,000 unassembled guns and close the company.

  His lawyer, Richard Ruggieri, told USA Today: "The critical issue...is [preventing] the business from just being flipped over and continuing."

  Bryco was found liable on the grounds that the faulty design of its gun, the P-38 semi-automatic, was partly to blame for the incident.

  To unload it the safety catch had to be released. Mr Maxfield, then seven years old, was hit in the chin while the babysitter was trying to unload the weapon.

  The babysitter and Mr Maxfield's parents were also found liable.

  Mr Ruggieri told the website jointogether.org: "We're making an appeal for a white knight, if you will, to come forward and say, 'I don't want to see millions of these junk guns put back on the street. I'll pony up some money, sell off the machinery and maybe recover half of my money, and take a tax deduction for the rest'."

  Bryco is one of many cheap gunmakers in an area of south California known for that reason as the "Ring of Fire".

  They sprang up after the passing of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which banned the importation of cheap guns from abroad. Several companies in the Ring of Fire have sought bankruptcy and in the process they have avoided legal liability for incidents involving their firearms.

  One had a total of 18 claims pending.

  Senator Carl Levin of Michigan introduced a bill which would have prevented the tactic but it was defeated by Republicans, who argued that it would harm business.

  Bryco is a highly successful gun manufacturer, two of whose weapons were in the top 10 firearms listed by the US government in a report in 2000 on guns used in crime.

  The industry is exempted from US consumer safety controls: manufacturers cannot be prosecuted or fined by the state for breaches, although they can, as in this case, be sued by individual plaintiffs.

  "There's nothing to prevent them from making the same defective guns and selling them on the streets, as long as they're willing to face the consequences in civil court - and I think that's exactly what they plan to do under a different name," Mr Ruggieri said.

  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

  -

  Ignored One.
• 

  dh

  random note: there's an interesting movie about revenge on gun manufacturers starring wesley snipes called liberty stands still.
• 

  kilroy2

  this is a subjuct close to my hart since I own over 90 firearms myself.

  From an antique 1863 sharps carbine to a couple of ar15s and ak47, and many hand guns, In fact as I type I have another baby on the way to its new home, a 5.5 inch bbl. ruger red hawk in 44mag. I already have a cold anaconda in 44 mag. but it was lonley,

  Any way sueing a gun manufacture for what the gun did is the same a sueing GM for a car that was used in a gangland drive by,

  The gun that was manufactured did exactly what it was suposed to do.

  that is it did not malfunction, blow up and hurt the shooter, it loosed it progectile in the proper manor, the problem was with the owner or the shooter. should we then close down jack danials because some one was a drunk driver or beat their wife and kids under the influance? why that is stupid you say?

  I totaly agree, it is stupid, or maybe we should shut down the case knife company because some gang banger stabed a woman to death, yep that is the root of the problem.

  Remember this is the left thinking, also remember the movie leathal weapon 3 or 4 I cant recall the one. but when the gang bang nog shoots at the cop [glover] and he has to with heavy hart kill the perp? then he goes to the perps mother and she says " Get the man that put the gun in my babys hand" Wow so if guns did not exist than this teenage perp would be helping the homeless or volintering for hospital duty,. any one who falls for that crap deserves the likes of kerry for prez.

  I can remember when in my home state of michigan we were fighting for ccw. for those of you who do not know what that means it is concealed carry laws that if you do not have a feloney on your record or violent mis. you can and shall be issued a right to carry, there are places you can not with a ccw carry, I.E. prisons, courts , schools, stadiums with cap. over 2500, predom. alchol service bars.

  When we were fighting for the right the left came out with the same old bull crap that the state would be the wild west again. well here we are 4 years in to or ccw. and by the way 38 states have done what mich, has, and guess what crime has went down,

  No shooting in the middle of wal-mart. ect. The left pandering to the likes of the ugly duck sara bready {which the way she uses her brain dead hubby to promote her agenda is sick} always come up with the fake reasons that guns are bad mmmkay,

  Most of you nongun people dont know about the book writen to support the idea that early americans did not in fact own guns that it was a recent propagand ploy by the gun industry, the book arming america by micheal bellesiles has been totaly discredited as nonfactual, in fact the book has been out of print as the left who held it up as proof that guns are a recent fad, not a haritage, has quietly put it behind them,

  follow-up | Posted November 7, 2002 Update on Arming America by The Editors Print this article E-mail this article Write to the editors Take Action Now! "Fire at Will," November 4]. His resignation, effective at the end of the year, came the very afternoon that Emory released the report of a three-person external board that had been asked to review some of the charges leveled against Bellesiles over the past two years by a number of critics. Bellesiles's book, which won the prestigious Bancroft Prize awarded by Columbia University to top works in history and was widely acclaimed when it came out, argues that our gun culture was created in the Civil War era and that in eighteenth-century America, guns were much less significant. As evidence, he relied in part on probate records from the time; difficulty in reproducing the original research on the subject is what spurred on the critics and led, eventually, to Emory's review board. The board essentially tried to replicate Bellesiles's findings from the probate records, having been asked by Emory if Bellesiles had engaged in "intentional fabrication or falsification of research data" from those records in Rutland County, Vermont; Providence, Rhode Island; the San Francisco Bay Area; and other records supporting his reports in Table 1 ("Percentage of Probate Inventories Listing Firearms") of his book. The panel--consisting of Stanley Katz, former head of the American Council of Learned Societies and a Princeton faculty member; Hanna Gray, former president of the University of Chicago; and Harvard Professor Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, MacArthur Fellow and Pulitzer Prize-winner--found it impossible to state conclusively that Bellesiles was fabricating or falsifying in the cases of Vermont and Rhode Island, though it was "seriously troubled by [his] scholarly conduct," which it found "sloppy"

  We need to ask ourselve do we really want to live in a coutry that sues fast food because we cant stop eating, cars companys because we cant drive, alchol companys because we are drunks, and gun companys because we are stupid with items tha can be dangerous? Not me, we need to take responsibility for our own actions, and quit looking to blame the other guy, If in fact the other guy did something to endanger us fine, but a when we put up ladders and fall off for standing on the top rung, we need to see this is darwin at work, we need to let some of the stupid die, we are made stronger, sorry if that seems harsh but we can not protect people for their own stupidity,, just this guys H.O.
• 

  Xena

  Bryco was found liable on the grounds that the faulty design of its gun, the P-38 semi-automatic, was partly to blame for the incident.

  To unload it the safety catch had to be released. Mr Maxfield, then seven years old, was hit in the chin while the babysitter was trying to unload the weapon.

  Miss that part kilroy? If I buy a car and it explodes when someone rear-ends me (can you say PINTO?) due to faulty manufacturing, then yes sue the manufacturer. And don't allow them to continue to make defective items that are a risk to people using them.

  I personally have no issues with responsible gun ownership (HELLO I'm A TEXAN ), but I do have issues with companies shurking their responsibilities when they make shoddy products that endanger people.

  I hope the kid gets his money.
• 

  kilroy2

  xena, I think you are the one who missed the point, which is that the gun in question did nothing faulty, unlike the design flaw in the pinto that you used in your comparison, the car was falty or had a design flaw. the gun has no such design flaw. it functiond flawlessly, so you are for sewing companys who produce products that do exactly what they say they will do?

  So can I sue huskavana because the chain saw cut through my leg? is that a design flaw. I think not, you need to focus, a design flaw would be weak metal that the gun company new would not take the presures of the cartridg and blows up in the face of the user not when the usere, and this is the problem here many want to blame the misuse of the user on the manufacture, and that is why all of these law suits go down in flames,

  the manufacture says this is a dangerous item and needs to be used by responsible adults, and it is safe, the gun is safe, I have owned jennings guns before, yes they are inexpensive, so what, you think a black single mom living in a bad projects can afford a 600$ smith and wesson? I think not.

  But back to the point you were trying to make, which no disrespect to you but it is totaly wrong, you can in no way compare a item that did something to hurt the user when the user was just doing what he was suposed to be doing, and some one misusing an item, you would have the family of selfinflicted gun shot wounds sue the factory?

  Let me put this in simpler terms [not that you need it but to keep is simple for all to grasp} the pinto comparison is not a good one it is apples and oranges, this is much better, sueing gun manufactures for misuse of guns is the same as sueing car manufactures because a drunk driver ran over some ones 5 year old, the car did not do anything it was not supposed to do.

  You need to keep the blame on the right place, the misuse of the user,

  people need to be responsible for their actions, It is all to easy and an base emotional responce to say sue the make of the item bad bad gun, bad bad car,

  inanimate objects can sit in a ditch and never hurt any one. a knife can sit in a kitchen counter and never do any more harm that cut a dead cucumber,

  but in the hands of an al quada nut case it can take the head off an innocent person. do we need to ban or stop makeing certian kitchen knives because some low life animal in the middle east uses one to do evil? of corse not nor do we need to ban or limit or sue the manufacture of louisville slugers because some nut case beat in some persons head with one.

  Guns are nothing more than a tool, they can be collected like I do. or be used for hunting, self defence, defence of country, keep the peace in law enforcment, used in pest control like nutria in louisiana, ect.

  Many have said that we need to licence users of gun, we need a drivers licence to drive a car? yes we do on public highways, and to have a ccw we need to get that licence, and you need to pass certian criteria, but you do not need to have a licence to have a car on your own property, that is the infringment, so to we should not need a licence to have a gun on our own property, you see when you put emotion asside the left gun grab falls flat on its face,

  I hope this clears up your missunderstanding,
• 

  Cassiline

  No shooting in the middle of wal-mart. ect. The left pandering to the likes of the ugly duck sara bready {which the way she uses her brain dead hubby to promote her agenda is sick} always come up with the fake reasons that guns are bad mmmkay,

  Can you say Ad hominem attack? Why are you so angry you own 90 + guns. What happened to her husband was sick. Done by a sick man who should have never been able to purchase a weapon.
• 

  Double Edge

  Kilroy 2 -

  I'm on your side, I too own several firearms. My question is "I thought guns were outlawed in Great Britain....how did the babysitter (which is another question) get a gun?"
• 

  TD

  As an amateur gun smith, reloader and gun owner for many years my feelings are slightly mixed.

  Maybe I'm just being a snob due to the fact that I regard Bryco/Jennings as garbage and don't consider their demise as any great loss

  The article is not specifc about the mechanics of the accident. It sounds like it might possibly have been a slam-fire. (The sitter may have tried to clear the chamber by manually working the slide and had the slide slip from his/her grasp. If it happens at just the right point with this gun, the cartridge can be fed back into the chamber and the internal hammer can fall.) Regardless, the baby-sitter failed to keep the gun pointed in a safe direction which makes him/her 90% at fault here. Perhaps the weapon was never actually taken out of battery at all. This would render him/her 99.9999% at fault IMHO

  However at the same time, firearm manufacturers certainly are aware of the legal and political climate in the U.S. and abroad. Bryco/Jennings was no exception. All reputable firearm manufacturers have gone to great lengths to idiot-proof their designs. Everyone in the industry knew why Ruger developed the New Model single action revolver and why Ruger to this day, will convert your Old Model for free. When it comes to autoloading pistols, Colt incorporated a 4th safety in the venerable 1911 design with the series 80. Glock pioneered the safe action system. Ruger and S&W developed decocking systems and DAO systems of their own.

  Bryco/Jennings certainly knew that insulation from lawsuits through improved design was the trend in the industry and had been for many, many years. They chose to take their chances by marketing a technological through-back to the 1930's and it bit them.
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  As a fire arm owner and supporter of Guns rights I also feel strongly about this issue. However, I do not support Cheap Pile of Shit Guns. A buddy of mine used to own a 9mm Hi-Point. What A pile of Shit. I told him to throw it away before he got himself killed. Ford can no longer make Pintos so I have no problem with Saturday night specials being illegal. All you would have to do is require that every new handgun pass a reliabilty test. Say 200 rounds fired with-out a jam or something. Wasnt dangerous to load/unload etc..etc...and then Manufacters wouldnt make Pile of Shit guns. And dont give me this "We need $150 handguns for home defense." Bullshit, you can buy a 12 Guage mossberg for that price which is by FAR a better weapon for home defense.

  While this might seem sensible it will never happen because the Anti-Gun nuts want to ban EVERYTHING and will attach so much bullshit to basic safety laws that the pro-gun will have to kill the bills.

  Im sorry that Sara Brady's husband was wounded. But since when did making something illegal actually prevent something from happening? Murders are illegal and yet they still happen.

  We have a product that is never going away so lets deal with it in a intelligent way. Not "Oh lets just ban it and all our problems will go away..." (it worked with drugs right???)

  35,000 people died last year from drunken driving- anyone sue Anheiser Busch?

  Maybe I have a problem with the idea of the Government being the only one with a gun. You lefties on here barate our Government/President left and right for all the bad decisions/questional motivations/Patriot act etc..etc.. but yet you want them to be in control of all firearms?? Talk about setting the wheels in motion for a dictatorship
• 

  Xena

  Yea, what TD said....that's what I ment to say.