Ammo For Sale

« « I’d go a step further | Home | R2D2’s a retard » »

Gun verdict

Short version: Man was horseback riding with a .454 revolver in a holster. He dismounted the horse and his coat caught the hammer of the gun*, which blew a 5 by 8 inch hole out of the front of his leg. His leg was later amputated. He sued and won. The jury felt that the weapon’s lack of a transfer bar allowed the firing pin to travel forward even if the weapon was not cocked.

Now, I thought the mean ol’ Republicans and NRA passed that mean ol’ Protection of Lawful Arms in Commerce Act which prohibited lawsuits against mean ol’ gun makers. At least, that’s what the anti-gunners would have you believe. Shockingly, they were wrong.

* quotes because that is what the press says and, to me, it doesn’t sound likely. More likely is the coat was heavy and hit the hammer pretty darn hard.

11 Responses to “Gun verdict”

  1. Kevin Baker Says:

    I thought the Freedom Arms revolvers had a transfer bar?

    I agree. This sounds really fishy. If the firearm didn’t have a transfer bar, then I am CERTAIN the instructions would have told him to carry the revolver w/o a round under the chamber. If the gun cocked enough in the holster to swing a live chamber under the hammer, then the sear should have latched. Then the only thing that would have fired it is a pull of the trigger.

    What, he carried it in an IPSC skeleton holster?

    I call bullshit.

    See what jury selection can do for you when 80+% of the public gets its gun knowledge from TV and movies?

  2. nk Says:

    I sympathize with the man, but anyone who thinks he knows enough to carry a single-action revolver should know not to rest the hammer on a live chamber. This kind of “accident” is as old as Colonel Colt’s invention. Most commonly it’s a stirrup dropping down on the hammer when saddling or unsaddling. And I also wonder what kind of rig he was wearing to shoot the front of his leg. (I fully expect to get beat up for this by you gunslingers, but if high and back on your hip is good enough for John Wayne and the FBI it’s good enough for everybody.)

    BTW: The Ruger Vaquero put Colts to shame price-wise and the Italian Colt clones to shame quality-wise but I never bought one because I just could not bear that flat-faced hammer and half-cock loading gate. If I want a “safe” gun I’ll go to Toys ‘r Us for a Nerf or SuperSoaker.

  3. Les Jones Says:

    I’m not familiar with the Freedom Arms guns, but SA revolvers without a transfer bar or hammer block safety are dangerous if you’re not careful about keeping an empty chamber under the hammer. I think it was John Taffin (a gunwriter) who said he had lost like five friends to accidents with old style SA revolvers.

    Remington put notches between the chambers so you could rest the hammer there instead of resting it on a live round. (Modern North American Arms revolvers use the same trick.) Colt used pins on the cylinder where you could rest the hammer, which had a hole in the face. From a tombstone:

    “Here lies_________
    Who was accidentally killed with a Colt’s revolver
    It was the old kind without the pins
    on the chambers.
    Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

  4. nk Says:

    Actually, there’s a second reason for the empty chamber under the hammer in a single action, going back to the percussion era. If the chamber under your hammer is loaded, when you cock back the hammer it will be indexed under the loading notch and the recoil will knock the cap off or, worse, just a little bit back so it will jam the action.

  5. Ravenwood Says:

    I’ve got three revolvers and all of them have transfer bars. Even the single six (new model obviously).

    Still, the thought of shooting my leg with a .454 gives me the willies.

  6. Kristopher Says:

    The federal law will not prevent an idiot judge and a brain-dead jury from deciding that a 100 year old design is somehow “defective”.

    This needs to be killed on appeal, or possibly killed in federal court, lest every numbnut who has an ND with a single action starts suing.

  7. straightarrow Says:

    I don’t think I believe the story. Has anybody checked the whereabouts of this man’s wife when the incident took place.

    I just don’t think it happened the way he said.

    Of course, I assume they didn’t arrest the coat. Right there is a good reason to ban private ownership of coats.

  8. Gov_ff Says:

    From the online mauel for the FREEDOM ARMS® MODEL 83
    5 SHOT REVOLVER;
    http://www.freedomarms.com/Manual83-full.pdf

    NEVER HANDLE YOUR FREEDOM ARMS®
    REVOLVER WITH A LIVE CARTRIDGE IN THE
    CYLINDER CHAMBER WHICH IS IN LINE WITH
    THE BARREL AND FIRING PIN, UNTIL YOU
    ARE FULLY PREPARED TO SHOOT AT YOUR
    TARGET. IN THE FIELD NEVER CARRY THE
    REVOLVER WITH A LIVE CARTRIDGE IN THE
    CHAMBER WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE
    BARREL AND FIRING PIN.

    The last paragraph says it all. Owners of this hogleg are WARNED BY THE MANUFACTUER not to carry the weap with a round in the chamber under the hammer. Freedom arms was covered! That dipshit who, suppossedly, shot himself with it should NOT have won the suit! The jury and judge who awarded the suit should be sued by Freedom arms.

    BTW, did ANYONE check to see what angle the bullet entered that guy’s leg from? It seems strange to me that a weap in a holster, right up against the hip, would shoot at such a angle as to hit the calf bone.

  9. nk Says:

    The jury found him 50% responsible for the accident. Which, according to the story, cut the verdict in half to $300,000.00 from $600,000.00. In Illinois, 50% contributory negligence nullifies the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff gets nothing. In one sense these are piddly legal issues. In another, these strict liability suits put small companies like Freedom arms out of business to the advantage of giant multi-national sellers of plastic junk such as Glock. (Running for cover.)

  10. straightarrow Says:

    My bet is he was practicing his “fast draw”.

  11. Chris Byrne Says:

    A note on the “Protection of lawful commerce in arms” act.

    The reason why the manufacturer was not protected from this lawsuit, is because the PLCA protects manufacturers against claims of liability based on the claim that a properly functioning firearm is by itself a defective product because it is designed to kill people.

    Basically it affirms that you can’t sue the manufacturer for making a gun that does what it was designed to do.

    In this case, their claim is that the design is defective; in that it allows for negligent discharge; and thus they are not protected.

    As to the status of the case itself, it will almost certainly be reversed on appeal if Freedom Arms bothers to appeal it (and I would hope they would), but the costs associated with the appeal may be more than the damages.

    I think they will jsut to close the door on future suits however.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives