One way or another they are going to melt down Bryco.


PDA






Bruce H
July 9, 2004, 06:41 PM
Lockyer joins fight to buy gun maker

Boy disabled by firearm flaw wants to close factory
The state Attorney General's Office has intervened in a federal bankruptcy trial in a way that could help a teenager buy out and shut down the manufacturer of a semiautomatic handgun with a design flaw that left the boy paralyzed from the neck down since the age of 7.

The boy is represented by San Rafael attorney Richard Ruggieri, who gave up representing other clients in his law practice three years ago to work on the boy's case full time.

In a highly unusual action, Randy Rossi, director of the firearms division of the state Department of Justice, wrote to a federal bankruptcy judge in Florida last Tuesday that the man the judge tentatively approved to buy the manufacturer, Paul Jimenez, is ineligible to make guns because he lacks federal and California firearms licenses.

Therefore, Rossi wrote to the judge, Jerry A. Funk of U.S. Bankruptcy Court, he was "submitting this written objection to the sale" on behalf of the state Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Lockyer's intervention could benefit Brandon Maxfield, now 17, who was accidentally shot through the chin and spine in 1994 when his babysitter was trying to unload a .38-caliber Bryco handgun owned by Brandon's parents.

Last year Brandon and Ruggieri won a record $24 million jury award in Alameda County Court against the gun's manufacturer, Bryco Arms, and Bryco's founder and the gun's designer, Bruce Jennings, after showing that because of a faulty design, the sitter had to turn the safety off to unload the gun.

Now, after having helped force Bryco into bankruptcy proceedings, Brandon and Ruggieri are trying to raise at least $150,000 to buy out the company, one of the leading makers of cheap handguns known as Saturday night specials, and melt down its inventory of 75,000 handgun frames and slides.

Ruggieri said the case has been all-consuming, but he pursued it because of Brandon and his injuries.

"Mr. Jennings and Mr. Jimenez have gone on record saying there is nothing wrong," Ruggieri said. "This is a plant that has put millions of these guns on the street."

Just because a jury finds a product defective does not mean it is taken off the market, Ruggieri said.

"It is one of the most glaring product defects I have seen in 22 years of practice," Ruggieri said. "There is nothing legally to get them to stop making millions of these guns and putting them on the street."

Funk last week gave tentative approval to the sale of Bryco's machinery for $150,000 to Jimenez, a former Bryco plant manager whom Ruggieri claims is simply a stand-in for Jennings. But Funk allowed 20 more days for objections and left open the possibility of higher bids.

"The attorney general's action could give us more time to raise money and make a higher offer," Ruggieri said.

But Jennings' lawyer, Ned Nashban, of Boca Raton, Fla., said, "The attorney general is barking up the wrong tree." Funk, Nashban said, is only deciding who will buy the company, not whether the new owner will manufacture guns.

"Mr. Jimenez could use the machinery to make widgets," Nashban said.

Neither Jennings nor Jimenez responded to messages left on their answering machines, but Nashban strongly denied any collusion between the two men. "I am not aware of any deal between Jennings and Jimenez," Nashban said.

Ruggieri said he believed Jennings "is just flipping the business over as he has done in the past."

In 1986, after losing an earlier lawsuit, Jennings sold his gun manufacturing company to his manager at the time, only to re-establish the business later, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis.

In their effort to buy out Bryco, Brandon and Ruggieri have taken the name Brandon's Arms and appealed for donations on their Web site. They have also asked for contributions from gun control groups, celebrities and politicians with strong anti-gun views, though with little success so far.

"I was very naive about it," Ruggieri said. "I thought here was a concrete chance to actually do something about stopping gun violence, not just make a donation to some politician."

An official for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said the center's president, Michael Barnes, had been approached to give money to Brandon's Arms, but declined to do so. "Obviously no one wants to see Bryco back in business under any name," said the official, who said the organization had limited resources and was gearing up for a fight in Congress over renewing the assault-weapons ban. Brandon has received a payment of $3 million from one of Jennings' three ex-wives, as well as $5.75 million from the insurance companies for an unrelated gun distributor.

But he does not have much money to buy Bryco himself, Ruggieri said. First, he must reimburse Medi-Cal, California's state health care system, $1 million, and there were $500,000 in expenses for the trial, for expert witnesses, depositions and travel, Ruggieri said. Ruggieri would not disclose his fee, set by the court. The rest of the money has been deposited in a trust for Brandon's lifetime medical care, estimated at $11 million, and his education.

Collecting the judgment against Jennings has been complicated by his efforts to protect his assets.

In a 1999 interview in Business Week magazine, Jennings described his strategy for dealing with lawsuits against his companies. "They can file for bankruptcy, dissolve, go away until the litigation passes by, then reform and build guns to the new standard - if there is a new standard."

Jennings not only controls Bryco, the gun maker, but also B.L. Jennings Inc., which distributed the guns; seven trusts in the names of his three children and a string of luxury boats, cars and planes, Ruggieri has said in court documents.

In 2002, shortly before Brandon's case went to trial, Jennings, who lived in Southern California and Nevada, traveled to Florida to consult with Nashban, a bankruptcy lawyer, on what Nashban has described as estate planning.

Within a few days, Jennings bought a house in Daytona Beach for $950,000 and an annuity for $500,000, according to the bankruptcy court records. Under Florida law, people sued for bankruptcy can protect the entire value of their houses and in many cases their annuities.

Jennings sold Bryco's factory building in Costa Mesa to a real estate company, Knowleton Communities Inc., for $4 million. The money was deposited in some of the seven partnerships in the names of Jennings' three children, Ruggieri has said in court documents.

In a deposition for the bankruptcy proceedings, Jimenez said he would buy Bryco with a loan from Knowleton Communities.

Nashban, Jennings' lawyer, said Jennings' purchase of a home in Florida and the annuity were "prudent estate planning to protect his family from his business. Anyone in a high-risk business does that."

Ruggieri has objected to Funk's decision to allow the proceeds of the sale to Jimenez to be deposited in the bank account of Nashban's law firm, Quarles & Brady, not a neutral party.

"Here's the guy who advised Jennings on how to hide his assets now being in charge of holding the money to pay the creditors," Ruggieri said.

The federal bankruptcy trustee in Jacksonville, Fla., Felicia Turner, filed a motion with Funk last Monday supporting Ruggieri's complaint.

Last week Brandon was back in Oakland Children's Hospital for what he described in a telephone interview as a "very minor" operation, a skin graft to relieve a pressure sore.

Brandon is in high school in Willits, where he lives with his mother and father. He is hoping to be admitted to UC Davis to study marine biology or paleontology.

Brandon said he harbors no personal grudge, but wonders, "How can he look at himself in the morning, knowing some kid is going to be injured by one of his guns?"



So why is Brandon Maxfield, a minor, being allowed to bid?

If you enjoyed reading about "One way or another they are going to melt down Bryco." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Michigander
July 9, 2004, 06:43 PM
:fire: :banghead: :cuss: :barf:

Daedalus
July 9, 2004, 07:07 PM
Um, don't you have to disengage the safety to unload an AK-47 type rifle? The bolt will not operate far enough to extract the round with the selector up..I am sure there are other rifles like this, the CETME comes to mind as well.

So this babysitter was futzing around with a weapon she was not familiar with and the manufacturer gets sued? Good grief.

Desertdog
July 9, 2004, 08:00 PM
Boy disabled by firearm flaw wants to close factory
With this way of thinking why arn't they trying to shut down Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Inc., Subaru, Dodge and all the other car and truck manufacturing companies due to all the injuries caused by their defective products.

ksnecktieman
July 9, 2004, 08:33 PM
Ruggieri said the case has been all-consuming, but he pursued it because of Brandon and his injuries.
Yes, and he spent three years at it? And he surely NEVER considered how much his share of 24 million is?

I call BS here, he did it for the money, Not for the poor crippled little kid :mad:

This was a case of looking for deep pockets, and suing the one with the most chance of paying. Blame this on the bad gun handling skills of the person that pulled the trigger with the gun pointed at someone.

It is impossible to "idiot proof" a gun, or a car, or a bottle of booze, or even prescription medicine.

Standing Wolf
July 9, 2004, 09:11 PM
They have also asked for contributions from gun control groups, celebrities and politicians with strong anti-gun views, though with little success so far.

Huge mouths; small pockets.

jefnvk
July 9, 2004, 09:47 PM
Surely someone here has $200,000 to buy a gun company, and start using it to make better guns?

Pilgrim
July 9, 2004, 10:01 PM
Ruggieri said the case has been all-consuming, but he pursued it because of Brandon and his injuries.

Did he really expect to collect 35-40% of $24 million from a small firearms manufacturer?

Getting judgments is relatively easy compared to collecting them. Ask any torts attorney.

Pilgrim

Nightfall
July 9, 2004, 10:24 PM
...shut down the manufacturer of a semiautomatic handgun with a design flaw that left the boy paralyzed from the neck down since the age of 7.
It's not a design flaw if something works exactly as it is supposed to. It's not a design flaw if somebody does not follow the proscribed directions for performing an action, and gets an undesired result. It's not a design flaw if you don't know what you're doing, handle something you know nothing about, and your ignorance of the mechanics of the object is what leads you to negligently discharge it. By this logic, I'm going to go out to my Honda Accord, take off the parking break, shift it into drive, and when it rolls down the hill and into a tree, I'm going to sue Honda because the car shouldn't have let me do that. :rolleyes: Why, I should have been able to not follow the directions, ignore common sense safety rules, and perform my actions in an incorrect order and still have gotten the results I wanted! The car should KNOW what I want!
Brandon has received a payment of $3 million from one of Jennings' three ex-wives, as well as $5.75 million from the insurance companies for an unrelated gun distributor.
Uh, why? Why does Jennings' ex-wife or an unrelated gun distributor have to shell out cash to this kid? I'm confused.

fletcher
July 9, 2004, 10:31 PM
the sitter had to turn the safety off to unload the gun


And I'm sure she had to point it at someone to unload it, too.

Keep the barrel in a safe direction, anyone?

Treylis
July 10, 2004, 02:05 AM
Um, don't you have to disengage the safety to unload an AK-47 type rifle? The bolt will not operate far enough to extract the round with the selector up..I am sure there are other rifles like this, the CETME comes to mind as well.

Lockyer's intervention could benefit Brandon Maxfield, now 17, who was accidentally shot through the chin and spine in 1994 when his babysitter was trying to unload a .38-caliber Bryco handgun owned by Brandon's parents.

If Bryco made an AK, I wouldn't want it. If they made an AK in .38... I really wouldn't want it! ;-)

Feanaro
July 10, 2004, 03:35 AM
On the one hand, I support the 'feller's right to buy something(And the sellers right to sell, or not sell, it) and do what he pleases with it. On the other, he is a moron. A huge waste of good money. The lawsuit is(was?) also crap. A design flaw is a defect design in a firearm. The weapon wasn't defective, it worked perfectly. The baby-sitter, on the other hand, is most certainly defective. Can we sue the "factory", her parents?

c_yeager
July 10, 2004, 03:50 AM
Um, don't you have to disengage the safety to unload an AK-47 type rifle? The bolt will not operate far enough to extract the round with the selector up..I am sure there are other rifles like this, the CETME comes to mind as well.

A whole slew of weapons require one to disengage the safety prior to clearing the chamber. Aparently this will soon be another feature of an "unsafe gun" unfit to be had in California.

BlkHawk73
July 10, 2004, 08:54 AM
Surely someone here has $200,000 to buy a gun company, and start using it to make better guns?


Better? Could those little POS really get worse?

Now maybe it isn't the best design around but firstly, a few basic firearms laws were broken here. What about the ignorance of the babysitter? What about endangering the welfare of a child? What about taking responsibilty of one's own actions. Nah, not in these times. it's ALWAYS someone else fault.

David Scott
July 10, 2004, 03:20 PM
IMHO, if it is possible to desgin a firearm so that you DON'T have to disengage the safety for unloading or loading, you damned well ought to do so. It's a common sense precaution. I do NOT think that the stupidity of one manufacturer, known for poorly made products, is reason to slam the whole firearms industry -- though that's exactly what some will make of it.

Granted, the babysiter was careless in actual gun-handling practices. You NEVER point the weapon at anyone you don't intend to shoot. Still, I think the Bryco design WAS flawed. Other posters have mentioned other weapons that must be unsafed to unload, and I thank them for identifying weapons that I won't be buying.

TheOtherOne
July 10, 2004, 03:57 PM
Other posters have mentioned other weapons that must be unsafed to unload, and I thank them for identifying weapons that I won't be buying.

I just checked a few of my guns and you'll want to make sure to never put any of these on your buy list:

CZ-75B
Browning Hi-Power
M/N 91/30
M44

Also, you won't want to consider a S&W M66, Glock 27, Kel-Tec P32. They don't even have a safety to disengage in the first place! :eek:

Destructo6
July 10, 2004, 08:39 PM
With this way of thinking why arn't they trying to shut down Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Inc., Subaru, Dodge and all the other car and truck manufacturing companies due to all the injuries caused by their defective products.
You mean like "placing the stop pedal so close to the go pedal that they could be easily manipulated by the same foot"? Don't give them any ideas.

So, the babysitter flipped off the safety, pulled the trigger, and the gun went "bang!"? Isn't that what a reasonable person would assume should happen?

feedthehogs
July 10, 2004, 11:15 PM
Jennings products are garbage but he should be put out of business by no one buying his products, not from lawsuits based on the stupidity of some one who does not know how to operate said product safely.

As far as not buying a gun with a safety that has to be engaged to unload.

Thats an accident waiting to happen. Depending on a mechanical device to protect you or others is a fools way of thinking. It is after all a mechanical device and at some time can and will fail.

Proper knowledge of your firearm and how it operates is essential.
Without this knowledge, you are a danger to others.

40 years of hunting, shooting and gun handling many 10s of thousands of rounds has never produced a ND. I have rarely ever used a safety on a gun.
To me a safety gives people a false sense of security.

David Scott
July 11, 2004, 10:42 AM
Just to clarify a bit, weapons like the Kel-Tec P32 are double action, and the longer, heavier trigger pull IS the "safety".

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 11:12 AM
A long, heavy pull is a safety? The babysitter pulled the trigger to unload the gun. Do you think she would've changed her mind if it had been a long, hard pull? If a person doesn't know jack about guns, I strongly suggest that a person not pick one up. This is completely bogus. If my client "accidentally" types "sudo rm -r -f" into a terminal window and erases their entire life history, should they be allowed to sue me? Perhaps they should sue Berkely (somewhat obscure unix reference). There was no malfuction of the gun. You pull the trigger and it goes BANG! At least it does 4 out of 10 times on a Bryco.

Art Eatman
July 11, 2004, 01:00 PM
David sez, "IMHO, if it is possible to desgin a firearm so that you DON'T have to disengage the safety for unloading or loading, you damned well ought to do so. It's a common sense precaution."

IMHO, I'm keeping my 1911s, right, wrong or indifferent...

:D, Art

Wildalaska
July 11, 2004, 01:09 PM
My safety is between my ears,...

Doenst malfunction....too much

Wildwhat?Alaska

manwithoutahome
July 11, 2004, 01:25 PM
I don't know of any pistol (revolvers don't have a safety) that you don't have to disengage the safety (if it has one, Glocks don't) to unload it, that is if there is one in the chamber. If nothing is in the chamber then you just pop the mag and all is well.

I must really be stupid because I don't see this as a design flaw (even if it was a cheaply made handgun) but a problem with stupidity on the babysitter (or lack of training).

All they want is money, and money don't come from a babysitter and his wanting to buy and melt down the guns is just a page out of the anti gunners book. He's nothing more than a poster child for the agenda of the anti's. Really sick if you ask me.

Wayne

Don Gwinn
July 11, 2004, 02:06 PM
Just to clarify a bit, weapons like the Kel-Tec P32 are double action, and the longer, heavier trigger pull IS the "safety".
So. . . . a firearm that will fire while being "unloaded" if you pull the trigger a quarter-inch is unsafe; a firearm that will fire if you pull the trigger a half-inch is "safe." :scrutiny:

Do over half the police officers in the country carry guns with defective designs? Glocks fire every time you pull the trigger, too, and it's not a long, heavy trigger, either. My SIG has a long pull, but it's too smooth to feel heavy. I guess it's defective, since I can't point it at someone and pull the trigger.

I can see the ads now:
"SAFECO GUNS! How many times have you wanted to point a loaded gun at a child and pull the trigger, but been worried something might go wrong. . . . and it might even be unsafe?
Well, those days are over, now that SAFECO has created the first gun specifically designed from the ground up to be loaded and pointed at innocent bystanders with complete confidence--even if you pull the trigger!
SAFECO GUNS! Point one at your loved ones today!"

P95Carry
July 11, 2004, 02:40 PM
Well ..... all has been said really but --- I do get real ticked off when the press, media in general, and some attorneys ensure that ''the safety'' is given such prominence on a weapon ..... as if by it's inclusion or omission .. the gun changes from ''accident free'' to ''accident waiting to happen''.!!

All serviceable firearms are meant to do one thing .... project a missile at speed out of a tube .... whether that is made easy or difficult has no bearing whatsoever on the direction in which a user chooses to point said tube.

THAT - is the bottom line ....... safety is indeed between the ears but sadly it is lacking in so many ... and no amount of manufacturer's attention to ''safeties'' will do a damned thing to change it.

I rarely use safeties ..... at least, not as a literal ''safety'' .. simply because they are mechanisms and as such can fail. I just love it when someone has a loaded weapon, applies the safety and then hands it over all but muzzle first - as if it is suddently transformed into an unloaded piece.:rolleyes:

whm1974
July 11, 2004, 02:56 PM
40 years of hunting, shooting and gun handling many 10s of thousands of rounds has never produced a ND. I have rarely ever used a safety on a gun.
To me a safety gives people a false sense of security.

I agree with this. Any mechnial device will wear out. The main safety is between the user's ears. This why I tell people who are wanting to get into guns is to get a revovler. They are a bit more forgiving then say a 1911 or a GLOCK.

-Bill

Firethorn
July 11, 2004, 05:11 PM
David,

"IMHO, if it is possible to desgin a firearm so that you DON'T have to disengage the safety for unloading or loading, you damned well ought to do so"

While it might be technically be possible to design a safety that allows you do unload a firearm without taking it off safe, it's not a simple process. Some revolvers have safeties, some autoloaders don't. My CZ's, while not expensive firearms, are considered good quality, and you can't cycle the action on them with the safety on.

It would add a considerable amount of complexity to a firearm, making the Bryco cost more. Remember, the Bryco .380 would be a gun for a lower income person. Every dollar makes a difference. It might be the difference between this gun and no gun. Lower income people also tend to drive cheap older cars, without all the safety features of newer or more expensive cars. It's a fact of life.

Take a look at how a semi-auto operates. to unload you have to remove the magazine, then cycle the action. On my CZ40, cycling the action moves the hammer and firing pin assembly, and interacts with the trigger assembly. I'm not sure, but it looks like there's even a firing pin block. My CZ75BD has one, but I don't remember if the 40 does.
Anyways,
1) Ability to unload with safety on is a nitpick, as you should keep your fingers off the trigger and the gun pointed in a safe direction when unloading
2) Manufacturing a firearm with the ability to be unloaded with the safety on adds complexity and expense
3) The safety might not be as reliable as the other ones. Otherwise, why would so many expensive guns exhibit the same features?
4) You're not supposed to depend on the safety in the first place!

I messed around with my CZ40 for a little bit playing the babysitter. Safety on, trying to rack the slide. After I noticed my finger staying firmly off the trigger, I placed it on the trigger for a 'better grip'. I found that I tended to point it sideways, to my left, pointing about 10 degrees behind me, slightly downward. I had some trouble firing the gun, as I kept tending to take my finger off the trigger. I found that when I had a nice firm grip on the gun, including the trigger, and operated the safety, the gun did fire(not really, I had unloaded it first, but the hammer did drop).

Extreme negligence/Stupidity. I mean, if she didn't know that much about guns, how did she know how to cycle the action in the first place?

I'd vote for mandatory teaching of the four rules in school. I mean, they mandate sex ed, so why not this?

whm1974
July 11, 2004, 06:37 PM
Extreme negligence/Stupidity. I mean, if she didn't know that much about guns, how did she know how to cycle the action in the first place?

I'd vote for mandatory teaching of the four rules in school. I mean, they mandate sex ed, so why not this?

TV, I'm sure she watch acters rack the slide back on autos, or seen poeple do it.

Nowdays people get more shooked up about guns then thier teenaged(or preteen) kids having sex. I think we need to add two more rules, the 5th rule is: "do not depend on safetys, they are mechnial device and can wear out. 6th rule: "If you don't know how to handle a partical gun then don't mess with it".

-Bill

P95Carry
July 11, 2004, 08:12 PM
"If you don't know how to handle a partical gun then don't mess with it" Sorry whm .. had to have fun with that typo.

Of course Partical guns are best left to the physicists who designed them!:p :neener:

whm1974
July 11, 2004, 09:24 PM
Sorry whm .. had to have fun with that typo.

Of course Partical guns are best left to the physicists who designed them!

Sorry I'm a bad speller. The last rule I came up after hearing about people who had a ND due to handling guns they wen't familer with.

-Bill

P95Carry
July 11, 2004, 09:45 PM
No probs Bill .... and sure wasn't trying to be demeaning ... just my warped sense of humor!!:)

halvey
July 12, 2004, 09:52 AM
are trying to raise at least $150,000 to buy out the company, one of the leading makers of cheap handguns known as Saturday night specials, and melt down its inventory of 75,000 handgun frames and slides. Maybe members of THR should buy that company. Maybe issue stock or something. Who has a manufacturing FFL to get this started. Sounds like a deal to me.

Besides, at $2 frame or slide sounds like a deal to me.

The_Antibubba
July 13, 2004, 08:40 AM
http://www.brandonsarms.org


Halvey,

If I bought the company, I'd still consider melting down their stock-those guns are crap.

But then I'd turn around and sell 50,000 melted gun lumps to some Antis, and use the proceeds to buy a real gun company.

KMKeller
July 13, 2004, 09:46 AM
I think a point that needs to be made is that AG Lockyer's logic, removing standing to buy the company because Paul Jiminez lacks the requisite state and federal licensing, also precludes purchase by Brandon Maxfield on the same grounds. And since Brandon is a minor, he is unable to get the requisite permits. He will have to find a surrogate to get the permits.

This is going to boil down to a permit race. Whoever gets the permits first, gets the company.

armoredman
July 13, 2004, 10:01 AM
Good gravy, I wanna see this kid go after Glock, a weapon that has NO safety whatsoever, and MUST be fired to dissassemble! C'mon, kid, 75% of American cops gotta be wrong!,(Sidebar, I don't like Glocks, but use one at work.)
My Mosin Nagant rifle cannot remove the bolt with the safety on, so it must be unsafe. My Witness pistols slides cannot be moved with the safety on, so they must be unsafe....
Aha, that's what it is - the next argument in the Cali court system over the "unsafe" gun they just recently created legislatively - if a court decisionstates any weapon that cannot be dissassembled with the safety applied is "unsafe", then owners fall into that new catagory of about-to-be-sued-by-every-idiot, and they congratulate themselves on ridding *********** of another class of horrible American. Of course, the cops are included in this too, so prepare to see every LE agency in Cali go back to revolvers very soon.....:what:

Tall Man
July 13, 2004, 01:42 PM
1. At the time of the shooting incident, the "babysitter" was a 20 year old man named Larry Morefold.

http://www.tlpj.org/News_HTM/bryco_05-08-03.htm

(I do acknowledge that the assumption that the babysitter was a "she" is well-nigh universal, and otherwise appropriate.)

1(a). The pistol under discussion here is a .380 caliber firearm.

(To be fair, this particular round suffers from an inordinate number of journalists dropping the zero when reporting on the same.)


2. The winning bidder won't need a firearms license to purchase the existing Bryco machinery and inventory, provided the purchaser does not intend to commence or resume production of firearms.

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0615gunbid-ON.html


3. The aforementioned pistol was not deficient in design or function. Although Mr. Maxfield suffered the after-effects of a negligent discharge, the pistol itself functioned correctly on that tragic day in April 1994.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2784


Keeping things honest,
TM

GunnySkox
July 13, 2004, 04:49 PM
*Mutter* The world is full of idiots, and those idiots are fully competent to blame everyone and everything except who is truly responsible for their ailment.

Unfortunately, this kid and/or his lawyer obviously aren't idiots. Like many gun-controllers, they're very, very devious. They knew good and well they couldn't get eighteen hojillion dollars plus the left kidney of the scum-sucking jackwad that actually shot him, but hey, why not strike a blow at the gun industry AND make a crapton of money? And everyone's heartstrings are yanked with 40-tons of stomach-churning, mind-boggling BS, such that noone stops to ask "why was the babysitter pointing a gun at this kid, anyway?"

The world is full of scum. Unfortunately, it's the kind of scum that floats to the top of the pond, so none of us little fishies (IE: sheeple, joe schmuckatelli average) can see the light, so we can't even see the scum.

Ugh. I hate people.

~Slam_Fire
Teen angst is good as long as it's aimed at the reprehensible actions of a**h****.

TheOtherOne
July 14, 2004, 05:46 AM
Of course, the cops are included in this too, so prepare to see every LE agency in Cali go back to revolvers very soon.....Of course not. There is always a LEO/Government exemption. What is deemed unsafe, suddenly becomes safe if it's in the hands of the Police.

Treylis
July 15, 2004, 06:48 AM
Just to clarify a bit, weapons like the Kel-Tec P32 are double action, and the longer, heavier trigger pull IS the "safety".

Uh, that's not much of a safety in my neck of the woods. Give me a manual one (and, heck, a grip one too while we're at it) any day.

If you enjoyed reading about "One way or another they are going to melt down Bryco." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!