New law passes protecting manufacturers.....No Trigger Locks?

[kesserman]

Since Bush signed the new law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits (even retroactive ones), do you think Smith and Wesson will take the Internal Locks off of their 2007 models?

 

[Fremmer]

Not as long as slimy lawyers keep arguing that the failure to include an internal lock consitutues a defective product.

That type of lawsuit is not prohibited by the statute which was signed into law by President Bush.

 

[Wildalaska]

Has there ever been a lawsuit due to the failure to include an internal lock?

Right now you have Remmington, Taurus, S&W and Springfiled doing them. In terms of Springfield and Remington, they can be user disbled. Would this be a basis for liability?

Wildrhewtoricalofcourseiknowtheansweratleasttonumber2Alaska

 

[spacemanspiff]

i recall some lawsuit that held the manufacturer liable, wasnt it because it had no internal lock? or was it magazine disconnect? i forget which.

 

[Fremmer]

From the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

Dustin McDaniel, a Jonesboro attorney representing the families of five people killed in the March 1998 Westside Middle School shooting, said he was glad King was giving away the locks.
McDaniel has filed a civil lawsuit against Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, the two schoolyard shooters; their parents; and Andrew's grandfather, Doug Golden. The lawsuit also names two gun companies that made the weapons used in the shooting, alleging that the companies were negligent because they didn't provide trigger-locking devices.

From our friends at Findlaw:

Lawyers should consider bringing a lawsuit against a manufacturer for failing to incorporate personalized gun technology into a firearm when presented with a situation in which a death or injury results from a pistol being shot by someone who should not have had access to it. This type of case can be brought under negligence and strict products liability law. With the exception of the Chicago and Michigan lawsuits, all of the city lawsuits have been premised on the smart gun theory and several individual lawsuits have also been brought against firearm manufacturers for failure to personalize guns. To date, the only case to go to trial on this issue was Dix v. Beretta.[20] The threat of this type of liability will put more pressure on manufacturers to develop a personalized gun and to help save lives.

Although the internal locks that are now being produced may not constitute the "smart" technology (bio-recognition or magnetic recognition devices) that have been suggested, the same rationale for requiring an internal mechanical lock would apply.

That's the best I can come up with....

I didn't know that the Springfield and Remington internal locks could be user disabled! I can imagine that the Complaint would allege something like, "Remington knew or should have known that a consumer would disable the lock, thereby allowing an unauthorized person (little Johnny) to use the gun in a harmful or destructive manner...."

 

[454c]

Wild,last time I checked,Remington has dropped the locks and Springfield only has the lock on the 1911s.

The liability issue.Any lawyer worth a spit should be able to prove that a cable lock,currently supplied with all new guns,will disable a gun.Disabled is disabled, wether it's by a cable lock,trigger lock,hammer lock or whatever lock.The gun companies need to fire law suits right back at these "get rich quick" types and make them think twice about that "easy money".

As far as S&W goes,well,they still have a little problem from a couple years back.