One big class action lawsuit coming up:

[deonb]

This is how bump stocks got approved:




And this is how they were subsequently advertised:

Don't want to make this about second amendment. Just saying these guys have left themselves WIDE open for a lawsuit.

This company seems pretty sleazy overall.

 

[Ravioli]

Not sure what the issue could be. The "user has limited mobility" to pull the trigger. Can you manage the carpal tunnel syndrome that would set in from firing that quickly.

Also, nothing in the authorization seemed to limit the sale to any distinct group of owner.

Products being used for purposes other than their intended/designed purpose are not uncommon. Nor is the use of a product by other than the intended consumer.

 

[deonb]

Products being used for purposes other than their intended/designed purpose are not uncommon. Nor is the use of a product by other than the intended consumer.

This isn't just about being used for something other that their intended purpose - it's about being explicitly marketed by the manufacturer for that.

 

[Ravioli]

Their get out of jail free card is likely:



Why can't they market a non-regulated part in any way they see fit?

 

[Norman]

IBTL. This thread is sure to be deleted by the MC in 5,4,3,2,1.

 

[deonb]

Their get out of jail free card is likely:

Sure, but:



I think they're on iffy ground here. It clearly was meant to perform an automatic mechanical function.


Obviously this is going to be illegal from now on (Republicans and NRA agree), and they probably don't have criminal liability since the ATF screwed up to give them this license in the first place (according to Kelley-Ann Conway anyway). But original intent plays a much bigger role in civil suits.

 

[John221us]

I am not in favor of bump stocks, but the problem does seem to be that it doesn't fall under existing regulation, not that they mis-marketed it.

 

[mscard88]

IBTL. This thread is sure to be deleted by the MC in 5,4,3,2,1.

Well if that's the case then:

 

[deonb]

IBTL. This thread is sure to be deleted by the MC in 5,4,3,2,1.

I don't think there isn't any political slant to be had here. Everybody in office at the moment is in agreement against this. Funny to hear Kelley-Ann Conway blaming Obama for being too lax on guns though

 

[deonb]

I am not in favor of bump stocks, but the problem does seem to be that it doesn't fall under existing regulation, not that they mis-marketed it.

Yeah, but they didn't go to the ATF saying - "hey look, we found a cool way to create an automatic AR-15 without using any illegal parts - approve us".

They instead went: "Hey, this is a cool way for someone who can't properly move his finger to fire a rifle by hitting the stock instead".

Which is sleazy - but sleazy doesn't matter from a criminal perspective - the ATF approved it anyway, so they're not going to go to jail. BUT this is going to matter a lot in civil proceeding. They got an approval for one thing, and then went and marketed it for something else. In doing that they lost the legal cover that otherwise protects gun manufacturers from liability.

If they went the first route, they could have pointed to the ATF and said - "Hey, looked the ATF guys approved us for this purpose - we're harmless". But as it is they can't.

 

[SkyDog58]

I heard that the NRA came out in support of regulations on bump stocks today.

 

[cowman]

Guns are such mechanically simple things, there seems to be a nearly limitless array of options to comply with the letter of the law without complying with it's intent.

Also what does "ban" mean? Banned from being manufactured & sold or banned from being owned? Stocks can be made from plastic and while the whole 3D-printed gun thing is pretty iffy making a stock probably isn't.

 

[Ravioli]

Also IBTL-

Your interpretation of the statement about "limited mobility" in post #10 is a far reach (pun intended) from the statement in the authorization.

Also, the authorization clearly states it was found to have "no automatic mechanical function when installed."

Like it or not, it is currently legal to produce and sell. That may well change as a result of the Sunday's carnage, but is would be unlikely that any suit against the part maker, the gun maker, or the ammunition maker would get anywhere. May as well sue the Mandalay Bay for having windows facing the concert venue, the promoter of the concert, and the bands for "luring people" to the scene.

And pretending this thread is apolitical is equally futile.

 

[deonb]

Also IBTL-
Your interpretation of the statement about "limited mobility" in post #10 is a far reach (pun intended) from the statement in the authorization.

What would be an alternative implementation of "limited mobility"?

And pretending this thread is apolitical is equally futile.

Apolitical in that we're not debating whether it should or should not be legal. Just whether the manufacturer will be cleared of liability as per the PLCAA (I don't think so - not with the way they stated things to the ATF).

 

[azblackbird]

Cool... that means the bump stocks I have on my AR15 and AR10 are going to be worth a at least 2 or 3 times what I paid for them.

I wonder if the 50 lbs. or so of Tannerite, or the many thousands of rounds of .223 or .308 I have on hand will double in value also.

You know what they say... buy it cheap and stack it deep.

 

[luvflyin]

They goin down. Maybe not in criminal court but a civil court is gonna have them gettin out the checkbook. Anyone got any idea who they are? Big company? Small? Subsidiary of a Big company [can you spell 'deep pocket' boys and girls.] Speaking of deep pockets, wonder what the odds are say a few 'peers' decide that the United States in the persona of ATF, further in the persona of John Spencer get say 1% of the blame for being so f***ing naive. Thats all it takes doesn't it? 1% responsibilty and your pockets can be opened up for 99% liability? There's some Lawyers around here. How's this work?

 

[Zeldman]

Just curious, has anyone sued any automobile manufacturers for their participation in terrorist acts?

 

[SkyDog58]

These devices have been around for awhile and their existence was not much of a secret. The fact that neither the ATF or Congress took action is the problem. The company made a product, asked for an interpretation on it and then proceeded to sell it. Socially irresponsible but legal. Too many things fall into that category. Personally, I think bump stocks should be banned. There are only two uses for a weapon that fires that quickly. One is to inflict mass casualties against other humans. The second is so some juvenile fools can get their testosterone pumping because they lack other means to do so. Those who claim it is their second amendment right to own these are really, really stupid ass clowns. Congress if they really want to do something could have a single issue bill sitting on Trump's desk tomorrow banning these things. They should do so. I bet the votes are there. Of course, turtle face would probably do his best to hold it up in the Senate.

 

[timwinters]

FWIW...I think that all our congressmen should sign a pact that states there will be NO LEGISLATION, EITHER PROPOSED OR PASSED, within six months (or maybe longer) after the occurrence of any traumatic event in this nation that pertains to that event. Legislation that’s based on emotions instead of logic is doomed to be ill prepared and poorly drafted. And right now everyone is running on emotion.

 

[luvflyin]

Cool... that means the bump stocks I have on my AR15 and AR10 are going to be worth a at least 2 or 3 times what I paid for them.

I wonder if the 50 lbs. or so of Tannerite, or the many thousands of rounds of .223 or .308 I have on hand will double in value also.

You know what they say... buy it cheap and stack it deep.

Yup. After a period of the firearms industry kinda being in a slump because 'we don't gotta worry no more, our guys are in,' stock prices were going up within hours.

 

[Ravioli]

 

[lowtimer]

Cool... that means the bump stocks I have on my AR15 and AR10 are going to be worth a at least 2 or 3 times what I paid for them.

I wonder if the 50 lbs. or so of Tannerite, or the many thousands of rounds of .223 or .308 I have on hand will double in value also.

You know what they say... buy it cheap and stack it deep.

Natchez Shooters Supply has a killer sale on .223 and 5.56 including green tip that ends today. I'm well stocked myself, but could not resist another 2K.

 

[deonb]

Just curious, has anyone sued any automobile manufacturers for their participation in terrorist acts?

Has automobile manufacturers ever marketed their products for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts? Pretty sure juries would start to find them liable if they start marketing "this car is fast and heavy enough to run over 50 NFL'ers before coming to a halt".

If these guys actually marketed to the disabled crowd that they stated that the product was intended for, there would be no problem.

 

[Ravioli]

Has automobile manufacturers ever marketed their products for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts? Pretty sure juries would start to find them liable if they start marketing "this car is fast and heavy enough to run over 50 NFL'ers before coming to a halt".

If these guys actually marketed to the disabled crowd that they stated that the product was intended for, there would be no problem.

Did we watch a different advertisement?

 

[deonb]

Did we watch a different advertisement?

They advertised the rifle firing like an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are illegal, last I checked.

EDIT: Granted cars are obviously advertised doing ridiculous illegal things all the time. With a footnote stating that you can't/shouldn't actually do that. But this thing was made for the exact purpose for which it was advertised.

 

[luvflyin]

Has automobile manufacturers ever marketed their products for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts? Pretty sure juries would start to find them liable if they start marketing "this car is fast and heavy enough to run over 50 NFL'ers before coming to a halt".

If these guys actually marketed to the disabled crowd that they stated that the product was intended for, there would be no problem.

The ironic thing, if I'm reading this right, is they didn't have to say a thing about that. The ATF said becuase it didn't have springs and all that stuff, that it was not regulated. "Accordingly, we find that the "bump-stock" is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act." They didn't 'approve' it. They didn't deny it. They basically said it's none of our business, your bump stock is in the mail.

 

[luvflyin]

I heard that the NRA came out in support of regulations on bump stocks today.

They do have a 'corporate' survival instinct

 

[Ravioli]

^^^(post #26) OMG... you read the whole thing instead of the dog whistle line only? You terrible person you

 

[luvflyin]

Cool... that means the bump stocks I have on my AR15 and AR10 are going to be worth a at least 2 or 3 times what I paid for them.

I wonder if the 50 lbs. or so of Tannerite, or the many thousands of rounds of .223 or .308 I have on hand will double in value also.

You know what they say... buy it cheap and stack it deep.

I'll trade ya an option on 100 shares of Slide Rite in two years for 25lbs of that Tannerite today?

 

[mscard88]

6 pages easy!

 

[deonb]

The ironic thing, if I'm reading this right, is they didn't have to say a thing about that. The ATF said becuase it didn't have springs and all that stuff, that it was not regulated. "Accordingly, we find that the "bump-stock" is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act." They didn't 'approve' it. They didn't deny it. They basically said it's none of our business, your bump stock is in the mail.

Totally agree. Based on the ATF's report it seems like they just could have asked for approval and not say what it was for.

Heck, based on the rules at the time (and still), they could have even said explicitly it was to change an AR-15 into an automatic rifle and it STILL would have had to be approved.

But they didn't do that. The way they did it (I think) is going to pierce the PLCAA protections.

 

[luvflyin]

Totally agree. Based on the ATF's report it seems like they just could have asked for approval and not say what it was for.

Heck, based on the rules at the time (and still), they could have even said explicitly it was to change an AR-15 into an automatic rifle and it STILL would have had to be approved.

But they didn't do that. The way they did it (I think) is going to pierce the PLCAA protections.

PLCAA????

 

[luvflyin]

6 pages easy!

I'm goin out for a six pack. Anyone need anything?

 

[mscard88]

I'm goin out for a six pack. Anyone need anything?

Better make it 12er!

 

[deonb]

PLCAA????

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act. The law that shields gun manufacturers from liability if someone uses their weapons to commit a crime.

AKA: The topic that this thread is SUPPOSED to be about .

 

[deonb]

And the reason I think it will pierce PLCAA is PLCAA does say that a manufacturer can still be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a product is intended for use in a crime. (Crime in this case is conversion of a rifle to automatic).

So I think that SlideFire specifically got that ATF letter (which was totally optional and they didn't have to get) to shield them from exactly this scenario - since if the ATF says the bump stock conversion is ok, it has to be ok.

But I don't think that letter in this case is going to help them.

 

[simtech]

Pfft...all you need is a thumb and a belt loop and you got a bump fire. I need to hit up the gun store tomorrow and buy one if they arent already sold out. I sisnt want one but since they are gonna ban them might as well...

And don't they know tighter gun control ain't gonna work. Look at Chicago, those who will do bad things will get the guns illegally anyway. This will not fix anything.

 

[azblackbird]

Yup. After a period of the firearms industry kinda being in a slump because 'we don't gotta worry no more, our guys are in,' stock prices were going up within hours.

I sold all my gun stocks the day after Trump got elected. I did take a peak a few days ago and saw that they were back on the upswing now.

Natchez Shooters Supply has a killer sale on .223 and 5.56 including green tip that ends today. I'm well stocked myself, but could not resist another 2K.

I haven't bought any ammo in at least 15 years. A group of us got together and bought a semi load from a manufacturer in Montana. I had a lot of custom loads done for me, and that stuff has already quadrupled in value.

Pfft...all you need is a thumb and a belt loop and you got a bump fire.

A rubber band works just as well also.

 

[luvflyin]

And the reason I think it will pierce PLCAA is PLCAA does say that a manufacturer can still be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a product is intended for use in a crime. (Crime in this case is conversion of a rifle to automatic).

So I think that SlideFire specifically got that ATF letter (which was totally optional and they didn't have to get) to shield them from exactly this scenario - since if the ATF says the bump stock conversion is ok, it has to be ok.

But I don't think that letter in this case is going to help them.

Ah. Is it an automatic? It sure be walkin, talkin and quackin like one. But...................

 

[Zeldman]

Has automobile manufacturers ever marketed their products for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts? Pretty sure juries would start to find them liable if they start marketing "this car is fast and heavy enough to run over 50 NFL'ers before coming to a halt".

If these guys actually marketed to the disabled crowd that they stated that the product was intended for, there would be no problem.

Ok, I'll buy the not advertising part. But I do know of lawsuits where the families of the dead wanted, but did not get, compensation from the car manufacturer, the dealership that sold the car, and from the salesman that sold the car. My question, and maybe I was not specific enough, has there been lawsuits against an automobile manufacturer after terrorist acts that a car was used to kill people? I am not talking about simple accidents where grandpa mistook the gas pedal for the brake pedal.