The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

cntryboy1289 · November 30, 2005, 03:34 PM

Fremmer, I figured you were in agreement on the way it was presented. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew where I was coming from. I hope the guy doesn't have to find out the hard way about the situation. After I finished the last post, I saw where he is actually in business for himself selling guns. I just wonder if he has sold any of those without having a safety on them or told his customers they should ignore them and render them useless because they aren't necessary? Any one in business should know that if you have an accident, the courts can lay the blame anywhere the majority of the jury deem fit to lay the blame on. They will also go to the deepest pockets first.

The funny thing is that I agree with him in that a lot of safeties or a waste of time and aren't necessary. The only difference is that when they are put on a gun and you disable them and have an accident, the courts will find you at fault simply because you decided you were smarter than the company that made the gun. That may not be the right thing to do, but it is a simple fact that in our day and age, courts will lay blame at the most convienant place they can find and the guy that removes a factory safety will be that guy.

MasterPieceArms.com, please don't think I am trying to put you on the spot here, but for you to think the idea is crazy that someone will find you at fault for disarming a factory safety if there is an accident is a little beyond reasoning. Let's take for example a simple case we had recently. The criminal courts rules a man didn't kill his wife. Then a civil court rules he owes his wife's children 31 million dollars because they thought he was either behind it or had it done. Now to me, this is beyond logic for a civil court to find fault and say an innocent man owes money for the wrongful death of his wife if the criminal court ruled he wasn't responsible. A civil court doesn't depend on all 12 members of a jury to make a guilty decision like the criminal court does. Even if they only feel like you are guilty, then they can hold you responsible. They can and do hold folks accountable that are not guilty each and everyday. Just look at the recent junk lawsuits filed against our gun makers. They were being sued because little johnny stole a gun and used it to kill someone. They certainly weren't guilty of anything, but they had to defend themselves in court. Just a legal defense can ruin a man financially.

November 30, 2005, 03:34 PM	#16
cntryboy1289 Senior Member Join Date: July 19, 2004 Location: Ms Posts: 1,160	We're all in agreement Fremmer, I figured you were in agreement on the way it was presented. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew where I was coming from. I hope the guy doesn't have to find out the hard way about the situation. After I finished the last post, I saw where he is actually in business for himself selling guns. I just wonder if he has sold any of those without having a safety on them or told his customers they should ignore them and render them useless because they aren't necessary? Any one in business should know that if you have an accident, the courts can lay the blame anywhere the majority of the jury deem fit to lay the blame on. They will also go to the deepest pockets first. The funny thing is that I agree with him in that a lot of safeties or a waste of time and aren't necessary. The only difference is that when they are put on a gun and you disable them and have an accident, the courts will find you at fault simply because you decided you were smarter than the company that made the gun. That may not be the right thing to do, but it is a simple fact that in our day and age, courts will lay blame at the most convienant place they can find and the guy that removes a factory safety will be that guy. MasterPieceArms.com, please don't think I am trying to put you on the spot here, but for you to think the idea is crazy that someone will find you at fault for disarming a factory safety if there is an accident is a little beyond reasoning. Let's take for example a simple case we had recently. The criminal courts rules a man didn't kill his wife. Then a civil court rules he owes his wife's children 31 million dollars because they thought he was either behind it or had it done. Now to me, this is beyond logic for a civil court to find fault and say an innocent man owes money for the wrongful death of his wife if the criminal court ruled he wasn't responsible. A civil court doesn't depend on all 12 members of a jury to make a guilty decision like the criminal court does. Even if they only feel like you are guilty, then they can hold you responsible. They can and do hold folks accountable that are not guilty each and everyday. Just look at the recent junk lawsuits filed against our gun makers. They were being sued because little johnny stole a gun and used it to kill someone. They certainly weren't guilty of anything, but they had to defend themselves in court. Just a legal defense can ruin a man financially.