Freedom Arms bankruptcy


PDA






JellyJar
July 26, 2011, 11:27 PM
Does any one know about Freedom Arms' bankruptcy case? What is the current status and such?

Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Freedom Arms bankruptcy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
powell&hyde
July 28, 2011, 03:07 PM
Here is a link to a pdf file regarding the latest bankruptcy case.

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv0611-4

JellyJar
July 28, 2011, 10:26 PM
Thanks for the link but not being a lawyer I don't understand what all that means.

Does anyone here understand what is happening and why?

Thanks

JJ

Kendal Black
July 28, 2011, 10:32 PM
This space for rent.

Comment withdrawn.

Dnaltrop
July 28, 2011, 10:33 PM
Lunacy...

What fool buys a non-transfer bar Six(five)-gun, and carries one under the hammer? Shooters had it figured out in 1873... Oh yes... the guy who blew his leg off because he knew better than 134 years of history.

Hell I knew the rule about keeping one empty when I was 10, years before I even handled a real one.

I hope they come out of bankruptcy intact, I'd love to have one myself.

powell&hyde
July 29, 2011, 09:45 AM
It is suspected that Freedom Arms loss of a product liability lawsuit forced them into the chapter 13 filing. IIRC some guy shot himself in the leg with a 454 and didn't think he was personally responsible for his actions (or lack there-of by not putting the hammer down over an empty chamber).

feedthehogs
July 29, 2011, 10:34 AM
According to PDF above, the case stemmed from two friends going bear hunting. As they were unloading the gear, the guy with the FA gun had it accidentaly fall causing it to go off and striking his friend in the hip and leg.

Being that his friend prolly doesn't have a deep wallet, the injured sued the gun manufacturer and the place that sold the gun.

This is the main reason for tort reform. In no way shape or form should FA or the retailer be included into this negligence suit.

While many people thinks this just effects FA, it has devistating consequences on the industry as a whole as liability insurance rates tend to go north after these suits which affects the costs for everyone who buys a gun and or parts and accesories.

You'd be surprised how much the cost for liablity insurance and attorney coverage figures into each product and how the consumer pays for it all in the end.

This was negligence related to the owner of the gun and no one else.

warnerwh
July 29, 2011, 11:16 AM
When will we be able to sue car companies for our own negligence? This is so sad to see an outstanding gun maker put out of business like this.

AKElroy
July 29, 2011, 11:37 AM
This is so sad to see an outstanding gun maker put out of business like this.

A Chapter 13 is a structured repayment of liabilities. It is a way for an individual or company to survive, and generally retain their assets while they make the structured payments. I kind of expect two things: First -- FA will survive due to phenominal reputation for quality, and second, That we will see all FA's with transfer bars in the near future. I doubt they would be insurable without them.

InkEd
July 29, 2011, 11:48 AM
I do not own a Freedom Arms revolver and have a few questions.

I would like to know if the firearm comes with an instruction manual with any safety warnings? Specifically, I would like to know if the manual mentions the possible safety issue of carrying the gun with the hammer down on a loaded chamber?

(I would imagine the answer to both questions is "yes.")

Secondly, I would like to know if anywhere on the firearm, is the there a "warning label" or "read instructions" stamp?

(This is probably a 50/50 chance.)

If there is a warning in the manual (and definitely if it says "read manual" on the gun) I don't see how such a case could even stand-up in court.

Most instruction manuals state (in some form or another) fireams can be dangerous and operating them is done "at your own risk." If Freedom Arms did not say something to that effect, they had VERY POOR legal advice and common sense. (Which we all know, isn't that common anymore.)

I am surprised that such a case would not win an appeal (or at least kept tied up in court) by Freedom Arms' insurance company and/or with the help of the NRA and other lobbyist.

hardluk1
July 29, 2011, 12:03 PM
There is also the chance that even if freedom arms is covered buy all the warnings in there manual and site that the cost to defend them selves in court would put them under anyhow. They are high cost to builds and over all company funds my not be that high. For a small company even winning a case can still leave you deep in debt.

JellyJar
July 29, 2011, 12:14 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. First, I believe that any truly reasonable person who buys a dangerous device should learn how to operate the device safely and should he not, then the manufacture should not be liable. However, I also think that FA should have manufactured the damn things with some sort of safety that would have prevented this type of tragedy in the first placed.

natman
July 29, 2011, 12:24 PM
I have a lot of sympathy for Freedom Arms, but let me play devil's advocate:

Why would a company build a revolver in the late 20th century and not include a safety device to correct a problem that's been know about for the last 125 years? That Ruger made a massive recall to correct in the original Blackhawk?

The Colt SA had a serious safety issue, why not FIX IT in your top dollar 20th century designed from a fresh sheet of paper gun?

Nomex underwear is on.:)

Frank Ettin
July 29, 2011, 12:57 PM
[1] There's no way to figure out from what's here (or readily available on a Google search -- I've looked) all that is really going on. The only way to really get a handle on things would be to go to the Bankruptcy Court in Wyoming and look at the public record filings in the case (or get any copies available -- which might also cost some money). I'm not going to do that.

[2] It appears that the bankruptcy is Chapter 11 (not Chapter 13). This is a proceeding in which a business debtor attempts to continue operations while restructuring its debt and reorganizing in some way. To emerge from a Chapter 11, a debtor must have a reorganization plan approved by the court. The debtor's creditors are represented in court and may make objections to a proposed reorganization plan. As a practical matter, a reorganization plan will not be approved unless it is acceptable to the major creditors.

[3] There are all sorts of reasons why a business will file a Chapter 11.

[4] One thing a Chapter 11 filing does is stop all other actions against the debtor in possession (the business that has filed the Chapter 11). In this case, that would include the product liability lawsuit referred to in the document linked to in post 2. That document specifically relates to various efforts by the plaintiffs in that case to have the matter continued in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Cosmoline
July 29, 2011, 01:03 PM
The attached pleading is part of an argument arising from the procedural problems that take place when a defendant in a suit with multiple defendants declares bankruptcy.

The referenced suit does not appear to be the one that FA lost, but is active.

I also think that FA should have manufactured the damn things with some sort of safety that would have prevented this type of tragedy in the first placed.

Those revolvers are very widely available for much less than an FA costs. Folks buy Freedom Arms because they don't want the transfer bar, they want something closer to the original Colt lockwork. It makes a difference in trigger pull and it's traditional.

If the dude wanted to buy a revolver and pack one under the hammer, he could have taken FIVE MINUTES and posted right here to have a unanimous answer to buy a RUGER or any number of repros that do have the transfer bar. There is ZERO repeat ZERO excuse for gun owner ignorance in this modern age. Thankfully many states have moved to quash these nonsense suits.

Also, it isn't a "tragedy," it's some gun owner being reckless. It's no different from any negligent discharge that hurts someone. It's also very easy for someone who's twirling the revolver and shoots himself to make up a story about how it "fell."

What fool buys a non-transfer bar Six(five)-gun, and carries one under the hammer?

The kind of fool plaintiff attorneys love. The way was already paved by the old Ruger suits, so their work is mostly done for them.

I'm thinking of buying a new FA to help them out.

Snowbandit
July 29, 2011, 01:10 PM
Even worse, they will probably have to start printing the owners manual on the side of the gun like Ruger does. That's plain ugly.

CraigC
July 29, 2011, 01:13 PM
Why would a company build a revolver in the late 20th century and not include a safety device to correct a problem that's been know about for the last 125 years?
Because that's not what we want when we buy a FA, Colt SAA, USFA or Italian replica or Old Model Ruger.


That Ruger made a massive recall to correct in the original Blackhawk?
Ruger never recalled the original Blackhawk. They simply offer a voluntary "upgrade" to the transfer bar system, which completely destroys its fine trigger/action.


The Colt SA had a serious safety issue, why not FIX IT in your top dollar 20th century designed from a fresh sheet of paper gun?
See above.


Safety is between the ears. Period. You can never fully idiot-proof an inanimate object. The world is constantly upgrading to better and better idiots.

longdayjake
July 29, 2011, 01:33 PM
According to the PDF, FA filed a chapter 11 so the plaitiff filed a motion to sever the defendants. That way, even when FA goes bankrupt, the plaitiff can still collect against the other defendants if he wins. My guess is that unless he filed in an extremely anti-gun jurisdiction, he would lose the case anyway. He has himself a crooked lawyer who is most likely violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is simply trying to run up the defendant's costs for legal fees so that he can get the other side to settle just to avoid paying their lawyers more than the settlement is worth. This is simply my opinion of course.

Lawyer strategy number 1: Sue everyone and hope that 1% will settle for a large amount.

Dnaltrop
July 29, 2011, 02:16 PM
Noting the nomex underwear... I'll break out the thermite... ;) I'll be surgical... not much flamage, just have to get through that protective layer.

The FA model 83 does in fact have a sliding-bar safety. Additionally, the accident was not caused by a falling gun, it was supposedly caused by the removal of his heavy leather coat catching the hammer enough to cause the gun to discharge

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_83806c45-56a9-5d4c-919a-2b2e4397f72b.html


"The complaint said while Taylor was taking off his coat in the trailer, a part of the coat caught the hammer of the gun, causing it to discharge a bullet into his lower right leg. "It blew a 5- by 8-inch hole out of the front side of his leg," "
~~

A transfer bar is lovely for a gun your EDC, or want to fully load without immediately discharging downrange... or go wandering around.... but you lose that sweet, sweet action.

If you're going to carry a Single action .45/4... I'm in the camp of having a snap/strap across the back of the hammer as well. That's just my preference however... with a gun that large, a doorway or table could strike the hammer at just the right angle if you walk past close enough to brush it with the gun.

As much as I love my hammer on my Schofield, it's a replica of a gun 130 years old, a transfer bar defeats the purpose there. If I ever get enough cash built up to own even a field-grade FA revolver... I'll get the transfer bar. If i'm limping through the brush after say... a hog my brother in law has shot, I'll feel better knowing a one in a million brush with a branch won't accidentally trigger the weapon.

DataMonkey
July 29, 2011, 03:08 PM
InkEd-
To answer your question, the warning to never carry your firearm with the hammer resting on a loaded chamber is repeated throughout the owner's manual. I'll try to pull it out this weekend and count the number of times it appears. I remember when I first bought my .454 (Model 83) I was thinking some lawyer really wanted to stress this fact.

It is a shame there are idiots out there that can do this to such a fine company.

Red Cent
July 29, 2011, 04:00 PM
CraigC beat me to it. May be better he did. It puzzles me that some want to blame FA for not incorporating a safety transfer bar. Why? Go buy something else.
Why wait until you shoot someone or yourself, THEN file suit because the firearm manufacturer did not protect you.............................from YOU.

The idiot that dropped a 357 Blackhawk, loaded with six rounds, into his tied down buscadero, did not secure the handgun, squatted, and removed a large part of his calf is the reason for the safety bar. Ruger dropped some serious cash on that one.

Were you guys on the jury?

DataMonkey
July 29, 2011, 05:28 PM
The whole manual is 24 pages including cover page and back cover and diagrams. In the first 14 pages, the warning about carrying on a loaded chamber is repeated 9 times. Additionally, is giant bold letters it states a holster with a retention strap should be used.

Apparently all this is unclear.:banghead:

Dnaltrop
July 29, 2011, 05:34 PM
Thanks for the Tally DataMonkey...

You can lead a shooter to the manual, but you can't make them read. ;)

Now, lets all head to Sears, head to the tool aisle, and start mangling our digits, inserting sharp objects into our ocular and aural cavities, and sue...

They don't even include a 24 page manual with disclaimers with their axes! Negligence!! We'll be rich I tell you RICH!!!!!!

AKElroy
July 29, 2011, 06:00 PM
However, I also think that FA should have manufactured the damn things with some sort of safety that would have prevented this type of tragedy in the first placed.

The muzzle will still be dangerous, unless you propose to do something about that as well.

jgiehl
July 30, 2011, 09:55 AM
Safety is between the ears. Period. You can never fully idiot-proof an inanimate object. The world is constantly upgrading to better and better idiots.

THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!
Very well put.
And remember kids, if there's a safety warning somewhere, some idiot somewhere at sometime screwed it up and was too stupid to admit fault and decided to sue.

Ger1942
July 30, 2011, 01:32 PM
What does it cost him to sue? The lawyer he got was doing nothing so he is now filling his time and will most likely get paid. It might be decided that the owner was 80% at fault and the judgement is 5 million dollars so the owner gets 20%.
In our system "someone has got to pay" is the current cry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Freedom Arms bankruptcy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!