Gun Control & RKBA

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts) Mon May 22, 2017, 12:03 PM May 2017

I heard somewhere that this can't really happen

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/jersey-police-allege-gun-company-sold-defective-guns-47555812

*New Jersey police allege gun company sold defective guns*
New Jersey has sued gun manufacturer Sig Sauer, saying it sold defective handguns to the state police.

There's that law that says you can't sue a gun company. Maybe NJ hasn't heard yet.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I heard somewhere that this can't really happen (Original Post) discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2017 OP

Gun companies have been sued for defective products. Hangingon May 2017 #1

I know discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2017 #2

Sorry, should not have jumped. Hangingon May 2017 #9

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does allow you to sue Abnredleg May 2017 #3

Thanks, no worries discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2017 #4

Unpossible sarisataka May 2017 #5

fake news for sure discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2017 #6

I told you this is unpossible: sarisataka May 2017 #10

re: "...misrepresenting what the law says???" discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2017 #11

Well, the fact that this suit did happen just proves that the PLCAA is unnecessary petronius May 2017 #7

This is why so many departments stick with Glocks, beside their light weight. pablo_marmol May 2017 #8

Most agencies go with Glock due to the cheap prices. ManiacJoe May 2017 #12

There's not much wrong with Glocks ... Straw Man May 2017 #13

Interesting! Thanks. pablo_marmol May 2017 #15

Never shot a P320, tortoise1956 Jun 2017 #16

And thank you T56! pablo_marmol Jun 2017 #17

Exactly. pablo_marmol May 2017 #14

Hangingon

(3,075 posts)

1. Gun companies have been sued for defective products.

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon May 22, 2017, 12:28 PM

May 2017

Just ask Remington about their triggers.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)

2. I know

Reply to Hangingon (Reply #1)

Mon May 22, 2017, 12:36 PM

May 2017

I trust you noticed my tag.

Hangingon

(3,075 posts)

9. Sorry, should not have jumped.

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #2)

Tue May 23, 2017, 08:57 AM

May 2017

Abnredleg

(951 posts)

3. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does allow you to sue

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon May 22, 2017, 12:42 PM

May 2017

If the product is defective, then you have a cause of action. What you can't do is sue the manufacturer for selling a legal product that is subsequently used in a criminal or negligent manner.

Edit: Missed the sarcasm tag.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)

4. Thanks, no worries

Reply to Abnredleg (Reply #3)

Mon May 22, 2017, 12:46 PM

May 2017

sarisataka

(21,000 posts)

5. Unpossible

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon May 22, 2017, 01:12 PM

May 2017

I have been assured by "experts" and folks who can disarm a person and field strip a 45 before the previous holder can react that the PLCAA is a special carve out which prohibits all lawsuits against gun manufacturers...

Obviously this is fake news

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)

6. fake news for sure

Reply to sarisataka (Reply #5)

Mon May 22, 2017, 03:39 PM

May 2017

sarisataka

(21,000 posts)

10. I told you this is unpossible:

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #6)

Thu May 25, 2017, 03:32 PM

May 2017

see- https://www.democraticunderground.com/126212210
just posted this morning.

"

On October 26, 2005, President Bush signed into law S. 397, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a bill that prohibits victims of the gun industry’s negligent practices from filing lawsuits in America’s courts. No other industry in the country benefits from such special legal protection.

"

Would the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence stoop to misrepresenting what the law says???

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)

11. re: "...misrepresenting what the law says???"

Reply to sarisataka (Reply #10)

Thu May 25, 2017, 05:51 PM

May 2017

Of course not.

Watch for an

petronius

(26,662 posts)

7. Well, the fact that this suit did happen just proves that the PLCAA is unnecessary

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon May 22, 2017, 09:59 PM

May 2017

and should be repealed. Or something like that...

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)

8. This is why so many departments stick with Glocks, beside their light weight.

Reply to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Tue May 23, 2017, 02:56 AM

May 2017

If it aint broke, don't fix it......and Glocks are reliable, inexpensive pistols.

That said, I'll always sign off on underhanded, back-door "gun control".

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)

12. Most agencies go with Glock due to the cheap prices.

Reply to pablo_marmol (Reply #8)

Tue May 30, 2017, 07:59 PM

May 2017

Glock sells to agencies very cheaply because Glock wants to maintain the marketing that says "more agencies use Glock than any other manufacturer".

Straw Man

(6,771 posts)

13. There's not much wrong with Glocks ...

Reply to ManiacJoe (Reply #12)

Wed May 31, 2017, 12:14 AM

May 2017

... but the SIG P320 fixes pretty much everything that is, and adds a couple of new tricks that benefit both the company and consumers, like the interchangeable grip modules. Repeat sales AND user-customization: win-win.

Anecdotally, the problems with the P229 and the NJ Troopers were related to their using steel-cased ammo for practice. SIG claims that there were no failures using the brass-cased duty ammo. Many manufacturers advise in their user's manuals against using steel-cased ammo. My opinion is that steel-cased ammo is only for use in firearms of the former Eastern Bloc, which were designed to use it. For the rest of the world, it's like trying to run your car on kerosene. But that's an argument for another day.

I expect the SIG P320 to start making large inroads into the LE market, especially after its recent adoption by the Army.

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)

15. Interesting! Thanks.

Reply to Straw Man (Reply #13)

Wed May 31, 2017, 01:33 AM

May 2017

I'll have to give the SIG P320 a test drive next time I'm at the range, which won't be far off.

tortoise1956

(671 posts)

16. Never shot a P320,

Reply to pablo_marmol (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 08:46 PM

Jun 2017

but I did rent a P250 (forerunner) once when I was looking for versatility, and was very impressed. The P320 is an insanely modular weapon system. If I were interested in a single platform for use in target shooting/home defense/CCW, I would definitely be looking hard at the P320.

I ended up buying an EAA Witness Elite Match instead of the 320 (as a target shooter). I already had both home defense and CCW weapons, and it was cheaper to buy a dedicated match pistol. Besides, the EAA is awesome - it makes me look like I can still shoot straight, in spite of my shaky 60-year-old hands!

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)

17. And thank you T56!

Reply to tortoise1956 (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 7, 2017, 09:01 PM

Jun 2017

Based on my very positive experience with my Sig upper, I'm not surprised at what has been reported.

Thanks to Lasik, this 60-yr-old does pretty well at the range, but it takes plenty of work in many areas to keep up with those young whippersnappers!

GO 56'ers!!!

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)

14. Exactly.

Reply to ManiacJoe (Reply #12)

Wed May 31, 2017, 01:31 AM

May 2017

And being first to market the lightweight polymer hybrid pistol didn't hurt either.

Reply to this discussion