theinvisibleheart
New member
Stage 2, post #239
what you are saying is that FA specifically made the gun for its intended market segment, people who prefer not to have transfer bar.
If this was resolved through the market and not through litigation, market would have come up with solution equivalent to retro-fit transfer bar solution. Although, obviously plaintiff would have being better served by buying a SAA with transfer bar from other manufacturers or FA models that had transfer bar.
It would be a shame if this model gets changed as a result of this lawsuit. If FA discontinued the product line w/o transfer bar as a result of this litigation, it's the market segment (people who doesn't want transfer bar) who will suffer.
But personally, I'm surprised that FA has not settled out of court. I suspect the legal cost might be higher than the jury award. Depending on the size of FA, I would not be surprised if they delay or stop hiring new employees or lay off employees due to the cost of this litigation.
--John
Stage 2 said:One persons flaw is another persons jewel. Thats why in the day and age of fuel injection, holley and edelbrock still make millions selling carburetors. Furthermore, loading 5 is only for carry and not for use. These are not defensive pistols, these are plinking pistols, target shooters and possibly hunting pistols. If a person desires a pistol that is safe with 6 rounds then they have that option. If a person buys an FA pistol then they do so with the warning that carry with 6 isn't safe.
Because YOU disagree with it doesn't mean that there are many consumers that prefer a non transfer bar SA. Hoards of people in SASS use these firearms. Collecters purchase these firearms specifically because you have to load 5. This is the issue you are missing. There is a market specifically for non-transfer bar pistols. By definition, something cannot be a design flaw when it is something consumers specifically request.
what you are saying is that FA specifically made the gun for its intended market segment, people who prefer not to have transfer bar.
If this was resolved through the market and not through litigation, market would have come up with solution equivalent to retro-fit transfer bar solution. Although, obviously plaintiff would have being better served by buying a SAA with transfer bar from other manufacturers or FA models that had transfer bar.
It would be a shame if this model gets changed as a result of this lawsuit. If FA discontinued the product line w/o transfer bar as a result of this litigation, it's the market segment (people who doesn't want transfer bar) who will suffer.
But personally, I'm surprised that FA has not settled out of court. I suspect the legal cost might be higher than the jury award. Depending on the size of FA, I would not be surprised if they delay or stop hiring new employees or lay off employees due to the cost of this litigation.
--John