Gunsmith liability concerns

[Hal Romberg]

I should probably ask a tort lawyer, but suppose I bought a couple of those Canuck flintlock pistols that they ship without drilling the touch holes. Now suppose I wanted to have a gunmith slick them up, install stainless vents, and he balks because he doesn't want to assume responsibility for an un-proofed gun. I have no beef with the gunsmith, but with the legal climate that makes him have to be so cautious about accepting work.

I understand the need to have gunsmiths accountable for their work, but what sort of court would hold him responsible for the entire gun's preformance when all he worked on was the vent? Chalk up another gripe about the lawyers.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I had a similar problem, although not directly related to firearms: the office of an apartment complex where I lived did not want to sign for packages in my name, which I personally have no problem with (sure beats running across town to the UPS distro center!). I can understand their reluctance - apparently, some folks had already tried to claim that the office had improperly opened some packages, etc., and wanted money - but it would be a huge inconvenience on my behalf, etc.

Thus, I asked the office folks that if I wrote up a "document" in plain English which stated that I wanted the folks at the office to accept packages on my behalf and absolve them of any liability in any case relating to any package which they accepted on my behalf, etc., if they would then hold my packages. They did and I did and we all get along.

Perhaps something similar can be arranged in your case.

 

[Majic]

If it's sold as a non-functioning firearm and the gunsmith makes it fully functional then as a licensed professional he does assume all responsibility if something should happen while it's being fired. It's his responsibility to certify that the firearm is safe to use before he can release it.

 

[Hal Romberg]

Sounds like it's time to learn some amature gunsmithing and proofing skills.