[Big Bad Wolf]

Keep all parts of the gun, and the ammo. Then go see a lawyer.

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

I guess everone would like to try a 597. I dont believe this is the first posting like this-and many describing all kinds of feeding, loading and extraction problems. At some point shooters have to assume some responsibility for buying a piece of junk.

The shooters don't make the piece of junk, nor do they know it is a piece of junk when they buy it.Shooters ought to be able assume that the "piece of junk" will not blow up in their hands. That is not the shooters' responsibility. That is the responsibility of the manufacturers, the guns and the ammo. You're lucky no one got hurt or maimed.

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

That is what the US needs.... more people like yourself.

Just trying to tell the gentleman how to preserve his rights. I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, send the gun back to the manufacturer, and they'll be pleased to destroy it, and send the gentleman a new gun, to which he is entitled anyway. Maybe they'll even throw in a couple boxes of ammo for his trouble. Don't know about you Sir, but most people do not enjoy being screwed, at least like that.

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

Sue Sue Sue it's the American way. No politician will put the gun companies out of business quicker.

I think people on this forum are confusing the types of lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers, which is the source of disagreement here. The lawsuits for the sole purpose of litigating the gun manufacturers out of business are the baseless, frivolous suits brought against the manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers when the product (gun) has been used in the manner for which it was designed, and it functioned properly. I have successfully defended wholesalers/retailer against this type of frivolous lawsuit.

What the gentleman who started this thread has described, however, is not a baseless, frivolous claim where the product (gun) has functioned as intended. To the contrary, it has not functioned as intended. It exploded. How would you feel if a gun you thought was safe to fire exploded in your hands, or if you were relying upon a gun to defend yourself against deadly force malfunctioned? It does happen and the consequences are serious. The gentleman who started this thread was simply lucky. He may, or may not, need a lawyer, but he should make that choice in an calculated, informed manner, not because friends or internet buddies are chiding him against holding the manufacturer to a high standard of care. The same applies to automobiles, airplanes, restaurants, basically everything turned loose on the public. For good reason.

To think of it another way, many posts on this board and others have voiced complaints about one manufacturer's decision to incorporate passive locking devices and magazine drop deactivation devices on its new line of semi-automatic pistols. Complaints seem to focus on these devices possibly rendering the guns inoperable in the event of dire necessity, i.e., using deadly force in self defense when faced with deadly force. I agree. If a pistol fails when it is needed most, then the product is defective and cannot be trusted. In that case, the manufacturer should be called upon to respond in legal damges (money) if its product (the gun) did not perform as intended. When that happens, someone, possibly the gun or the ammo manufacturer, or both, were negligent. If someone is injured or killed due to their negligence, they must be held accountable.

That's your short lesson in products liability law. The law was not designed to litigate lawful producers of legitimate products out of business for political purposes. Just because some charlatans pervert the law for their own misguided purpose does not mean that the law itself is frivolous or unjust. Like guns, my friends, the law doesn't hurt people, people who misuse it hurt people.

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

No one is confused here, I don't think.

No one was hurt. What are you going to sue for? Because you MAY have been hurt? It could have been numerous factors, not necessarily a defective rifle. Again, no one lost an eye or died.

Be a man with self respect and character and simply move on.

Please go back and re-read my original post. Did I say "sue?" No, I said "go see a lawyer."

The fact of the matter is that most product liability/personal injury lawyers (of which I am not one, I was a tax lawyer) provide a free consultation during which they advise a person of their legal rights. I think that some people, unduly influenced by industry propaganda, automatically equate lawyer with "sue." Such is not the case. Many times I have advised people of their legal rights, only to have them thank me for letting them know where they stand vis a vis the system, pay me a nominal consultation fee, then leave without my ever seeing them again.

A man of self-respect and good character I am. Meticulous, circumspective, and concerned with the rights of others I am too. Which is one reason I chose to become a lawyer. FYI, I no longer practice law, but I teach it. So there is no money in suing to be made by me. I do try to imbue my students with the passion to do what is right for their fellows in need. Regretably, the system under which we live too often thrives on the poor and ignorant. And ignorance is no way to address a problem, any problem. Which is why I advised the gentleman who started this thread the way I did. Go see a lawyer.

A personal attack on the advocate is a form of fallacy called ad hominem (toward the man) if one cannot attack the argument. I trust this explanation closes the issue, and now I "move on."

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

Lawyers attacking Gun MFG's.... That's what we need more of .

[ / sarcasm ]

I note your a member of the NRA. I now have another reason not to renew with them.

Life member. Member since ca. 1973, that's over 30 years I've been fighting the good fight.