Kahr settles
Looks like they’re paying $600K to the family of man killed by one of their guns. Seems an employee of theirs (who had a criminal record and a drug addiction) stole a gun then sold it and it was later used in a shooting. Looks to me like Kahr is paying go away money.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:03 am
They did actually drop the ball in this situation… No background check at a gun factory??? Come on…
July 28th, 2011 at 10:20 am
I agree with John. I’m finding it hard to be sympathetic to Khar’s position.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:24 am
ditto… Not that everyone should pass a carry check to work there, but the ones who have access to the guns certainly should.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:26 am
“criminal record” does not necessarily mean prohibited person. So who knows if it would have shown up.
July 28th, 2011 at 11:08 am
They didn’t, so we don’t.
July 28th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Markie Marxist sez: “Nice to see my commie compadres at the Brady Center putting a capitalist gun company out of business. The misuse of any product produced by a capitalist company should be used as an excuse to put that company out of business – it’s just easier with gun companies than with, say, ax companies, or knife companies, or golf club companies, tire iron companies, baseball bat companies, etc. It’s common communist sense to use any excuse that will work for us against capitalism. Of course, once we Marxists have completely nationalized the entire US economy and all production belongs to us, we won’t put up with any such nonsense because it wouldn’t be common communist sense to do so. We Marxists are smart like htat.”
July 28th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
In fact, the reason Kahr settled was to moot a federal constitutional challenge to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act being mounted by the Brady bunch (as co-counsel in this lawsuit). This case has dragged on for nine years (eight of which, the Bradies have been funding and driving it), and Kahr figured that a $600K settlement was cheaper than continuing the fight (both the lawsuit AND the constitutional challenge), and DEFINATELY worth not risking having some leftist judge throw out the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
The only criminal conviction on his record was driving on a suspended license. Does driving while suspended even get reported to an empoyer running a criminal background check in Mass?
The drug allegations were made by his wife during their divorce; there is no evidence in the plaintiff brief (and the Brady bunch spent EIGHT YEARS on this case) that he was ever arrested or charged with a drug-related offense.
His ex-wife alleged (AFTER he was hired) that he was under reporting his extra income (both the existance of his 2nd job at Kahr, as well as his overtime from his 1st job). No evidence of ANY action beyond her filing the suport complaint.
He had one charge dismissed (giving a cop a false name).
He had several other charges (domestic A&B, A&B, DUI — all seperate incidents and cases, spread over several years) where he pled no contest, and while the judge has teh atuthority to enter a “guilt” finding in such cases, the judge instead gave him a “continuance without finding” (CWOF), which is what Massachusetts law calls it when you get “do X for Y time, and this all goes away” (except the CWOF can be used for penalty enhancement considerations in future convictions of the same type of offence).
Under Mass law, a CWOF is NOT a conviction, does NOT make you a “prohibited person” (not for joining the cops, the military, or possessing a gun), and does NOT require you to admit it if asked “Have you been convicted?”
Unless a Massachusetts criminal background check by an employer would normally reveal driving on a suspended license, it seems as though (according to Mass state websites and Mass criminal lawyer websites) the response Kahr would have received would be, “No adult criminal records found.”
July 29th, 2011 at 1:15 am
Firearm company owned by criminal Moonie cult caught in a crime? I’m shocked!
Rev Sun Myung Moon owns Kahr and is a felon himself, so I doubt him or his son and CEO is a fan of background checks!
July 29th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Sometimes it’s easier to settle. It’s a broad statement to make until you are actually sitting in the Defendant chair. In civil cases it’s not what you can prove, but what you can convince the jury of. 600K is chump change compared to $42 million, or some other godly number.
July 30th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Ash at 8 Wait, you mean a felon can’t own a gun but can own a company that makes guns? Wow.