Bushmaster Firearms Settles Lawsuit Filed by Victim Families of Washington Sniper

[frazzledspice]

http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/040914/1095181860_1.html

Handgun control lobbyists are rejoicing. America's trial lawyers are licking their chops. But for the beleaguered U.S. weapons industry, last week was a grim one. On Thursday, privately held Bushmaster Firearms, the maker of an M-16 lookalike that a couple of nasty characters used to create the 2002 "Sniper Scare" on the East Coast, agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by relatives of eight victims of the Washington sniper.

Ultimately, the significance of this story is that a crack has appeared in the weapons makers' armor. One of their number has cried "Uncle!" and paid up to make the pesky lawyers go away. It's now only a matter of time before Bushmaster is known not as the only manufacturer to settle such a lawsuit, but as the first manufacturer to settle such a lawsuit.

This is more of an opinion piece than a factual article. To me, I'm just glad that society is starting to hold gun manufacturers accountable even as the government flashes them the green light.

The author said that the gun industry is beleagured (I thought WE were) and will become more beleagured with this turn of events.

[phoenixx]

Those people actually SUED the gunmaker for what was basically the imbalanced mind(s) of their attacker(s)? I'm flabbergasted.

[frazzledspice]

Not really. Bushmaster was vulnerable because it sold its guns to a retailer, BullsEye Shooter Supply, didn't carefully monitor its inventory and had "lost" 238 weapons over three years.

The feeling, I suppose, was that if Bushmaster was manufacturing a potentially lethal product, it should take care to sell only to retailers who carefully controlled their inventory.

Just as psychotropic drugs and even OTC cold medicines which contain a component of crystal meth are carefully monitored and controlled. Should we expect any less of gun retailers?

The retailer paid about 80% of the settlement costs...the gun manufacturer paid about 20%.

Rather, the plaintiffs hung their legal hat on a much sturdier peg: the facts that Bulls Eye Shooter Supply, the retailer from which the sniper acquired the Bushmaster rifle in question, had a history of having guns "go missing" (238 weapons over three years). That Bushmaster knew of Bulls Eye's propensity to "lose" weapons. And that Bushmaster didn't require the retailer to carefully monitor its inventory.

[poseidon]

This'll cost Bushmaster a whole lot more than the settlement. If memory serves, Smith & Wesson had their @$$es handed to them by the gun-buying public after they caved in to a very bad idea on behalf of the lunatic gun-grabbers.

[jgibson2[$]]

poseidon said

This'll cost Bushmaster a whole lot more than the settlement. If memory serves, Smith & Wesson had their @$$es handed to them by the gun-buying public after they caved in to a very bad idea on behalf of the lunatic gun-grabbers.

But Frazz is right, Jeff. Bushmaster was selling to a retailer who was so careless with his stock that he "didn't notice" that the gun used by the sniper was missing until it was recovered by the police.

Authorities believe that Malvo shoplifted the rifle from Bull's Eye, where he and Muhammad had been seen checking out the Bushmaster that later disappeared. Once the weapon was found in the back of Muhammad's Chevrolet Caprice and traced back to Bull's Eye, a search of federal records found that the shop had lost track of 238 guns in the previous three years and that more than 50 guns from the store were traced to criminal acts from 1997 to 2001.

[erik_kosberg]

Handgun control lobbyists are rejoicing.

I suppose they were, on general principles. Not that handguns were used for the killings or anything.

[poseidon]

jgibson2 said

But Frazz is right, Jeff. Bushmaster was selling to a retailer who was so careless with his stock that he "didn't notice" that the gun used by the sniper was missing until it was recovered by the police.

So what? A manufacturer should not be held liable for retailers who can't keep an eye on their products. That's not a nice slippery slope.

[eris esoteric]

I'd have to say I'm with Jeff on this one. What kind of store can you SHOPLIFT a sniper rifle from? I mean, I'm gun ignorant, but wouldn't it be, I don't know, BIG?

I would agree that the retailer who allows 238 guns to go missing has a lot to answer for, but the manufacturer? Are they legally required to keep track of how many guns the retailers they sell to lose in a year? Why?

[poseidon]

Here's my question -- what other manufacturers are held liable for an independent distributor's lack of inventory control?

If Beringer wines are being shoplifted out of a liquor store, and a kid drinking Beringer wine gets into a car accident, do we then sue Beringer? If kids are shoplifting cigarettes, is this yet another excuse to sue the shit out of the tobacco industry?

[jgibson2[$]]

poseidon said

Here's my question -- what other manufacturers are held liable for an independent distributor's lack of inventory control?

If Beringer wines are being shoplifted out of a liquor store, and a kid drinking Beringer wine gets into a car accident, do we then sue Beringer? If kids are shoplifting cigarettes, is this yet another excuse to sue the shit out of the tobacco industry?

Nobody is required to keep records of the wine or cigarettes they sell. Perhaps a better analogy would be controlled narcotics. If those "dealers" don't keep really good records, they're out of business in a big hurry.

Gun dealers are required to keep records too -- and this one was so sloppy that he "lost" 300 guns.

What kind of volume would it take to make up for that magnitude of loss? We're not talking about candy bars. Don't you think he'd try harder to keep them from walking out the door if he wasn't somehow being compensated for most of the missing guns?

[eris esoteric]

And that's fine, and I could almost see making a case against the DEALER. But the person selling to the dealer?

[poseidon]

jgibson2 said

Nobody is required to keep records of the wine or cigarettes they sell. Perhaps a better analogy would be controlled narcotics. If those "dealers" don't keep really good records, they're out of business in a big hurry.

Gun dealers are required to keep records too -- and this one was so sloppy that he "lost" 300 guns.

Except (and I may be wrong here), records of firearm transactions are supposed to be destroyed after 30 days. Maybe that's just state law, but I thought it was federal.

What kind of volume would it take to make up for that magnitude of loss? We're not talking about candy bars. Don't you think he'd try harder to keep them from walking out the door if he wasn't somehow being compensated for most of the missing guns?

I don't believe that gun dealers sell on a floor plan like car dealers do. So, why would the manufacturer care if the dealer is giving away guns, selling guns for $1 a piece, etc.? The dealer has purchased the guns from Bushmaster, he in turn sells them to the public. Once his transaction with Bushmaster is complete, what's the manufacturer have to do with it? Nothing.

[cristina1]

jgibson2 said

Nobody is required to keep records of the wine or cigarettes they sell. Perhaps a better analogy would be controlled narcotics. If those "dealers" don't keep really good records, they're out of business in a big hurry.

Not being snarky here, but who closes them down? My guess would be the state, not the manufacturer.

[jgibson2[$]]

cristina1 said

Not being snarky here, but who closes them down? My guess would be the state, not the manufacturer.

Actually, it's probably the feds. I'm not sure the manufacturers don't have something to do with it, though. The pharmacist next door to my kids' pediatrician told me that he has occasionally had problems getting Ritalin. He's keeping really good records, just like he's supposed to, but he's selling "too much" of the stuff. The fact that he's next door to THE pediatrician in the county who really knows his stuff on ADHD has nothing to do with it. He can demonstrate where every single pill goes, but there's still a problem.

[cristina1]

Thanks for the answer, Judy. That is what I was wondering. So, most likely, the drug company will notify the feds when they feel there is a problem? That makes a lot of sense, and helps the inspectors do their jobs as well.