Safety & muzzleloaders - are we buying bombs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Police Report

You are correct, the police report does state that he did not see any overt damage to the barrel. If you are familiar with the construction of the Prohunter rifle you will know that it was a two piece barrel. The end of the barrel that failed was seated into a casing that held the bolt mechanism in place. In order to see where the barrel had split one has to look into the back of that casing to appreciate the fact that the breach plug and the last 1.5 inches of the barrel are missing. He was accurate that the barrel looks intact at first glance. lets keep in mind that he did a very brief assessment of the gun, and not a thorough inspection.

Again, I would be happy to send you pictures of the gun or a copy of the inspection performed by the third party gun specialist.
 
i see nothing about your barrel splitting. All ive read is that the rifle "back fired" a term ive never heard of before unless it was with a motor,and that the striker & spring hit you in the face. Theres pictures of your gun on that website.

Zenger_1_CVA_Pro_1.jpg

Zenger_parts.jpg

http://www.cvaguncases.com/uploads/E_Z_Provo_PD_report.pdf
 
Barrel

The barrel did not split lengthwise, it split around the circumference. What you are looking at from that view is the sheath I spoke of in the previous post. The barrel was a two piece construction, so the part of the barrel that split was inside the sheath and to appreciate it, you would have to be looking into the sheath from the back of the gun. I apologize it is difficult to explain. But the end result is that the bolt and the spring you see there were both embedded into the right side of my face.

I am not sure where the term "backfired" started, but it was meant to describe the gun blowing everything out the back of the barrel instead of the front of the barrel.
 
Motives

Once again I would say that I have no ulterior motives in telling my story. I only want to let people know that I had a horrible experience with a CVA rifle and that over the past 8 years since my accident I have spoken with many others who have had similar experiences.

I do not have the time to sit here and go back and forth with naysayers. If there is anyone who is serious about finding out more about my experience or if you would like more information about CVA I would be happy to share anything that me or my attorneys gathered. If I can prevent one person from going through what I went through then it will be worth it.

Please feel free to contact me by mail at
PO Box 2101
Orem, Utah 84059

or by email at
ezenger@gmail.com

or on my cell at 801-362-3000
 
Okay, I started looking at some of the court docket sheets. It indicates in the trial of Katzenmeier and Blackpowder Products (CVA?) and Dikar, that Wakeman's testimony was disallowed and the jury verdict was returned in favor of Blackpowder Products and Dikar.

That means Katzenmeier lost and the jury did not think that the gun was a bomb.

Also read Schaa. That was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that there could be no more lawsuit against CVA and Dikar (barrel maker)

Bazell, looks like they sued CVA, Dikar, WalMart and Sam's. Looks like CVA and Dikar were dumped from the case and they proceeded only against WalMart and reached a settlement.

Buschellman, totally dismissed. Also sued WalMart, CVA and Sam's. No settlement. Just dismissed.

Conger, no trial, just totally dismissed. No judgment, no nothing.

Kohn. Sued CVA and Cabellas. CVA was dismissed out. Case went back to county court from federal court against Cabellas, but there is nothing indicating how that came out against Cabellas.

None of those sound like CVA was at fault for anything.

Anybody want me to go on checking the other cases?

The Doc is out now. :cool:
 
Last edited:
:cool:I don't think I am going to check any more cases. Here is the bottom line.

Anybody can be sued anytime, anywhere for anything. The thing is that you have to have proof to have the case go on. None of these cases apparently did that I reviewed from that page against CVA.

Frankly, the page now sounds libelous as against CVA since they say CVA is dangerous, but the results of the suits are to the contrary. Libel is the spreading of falsehoods, knowingly, in print or media.

I think it is about time for the moderators to shut this thread down.

How about it Moderators?

The Doc is out now.
 
Jeeze what did i start

i think on page 2 or 3 of this article i asked if my CVA Kodiac Pro Mag is safe to shoot it was made in 2005 boy just reading all these replys are outstanding all i shoot is two 50 gr pellets with a 250 gr sabot or powerbelts so i thank you all for this valued info
 
You've created a Monster. IT'S ALIVE!

Yep, ya gotta be careful what kind of fertilizer ya use around this place. Dang weeds sprout up and before you know it, ya got 7 or 8 pages of weeds har. Eh-yup. Gotta be careful. :rolleyes:

The Doc is out now. :cool:

PS, you'll be fine with that load.
 
Good thread I see no need to shut it down...I din't throw my 1988 CVA 1863 Remington Zouave .58CAL away. I'll still shoot 500gr minee' Ball through it, but no more loading rods ... only launched one a them a couple three hundred yards down range. When I first got it.
Find it nawww...got a replacement from Dixie Gun Works :O)
(but it did kick a hair!)
 
but no more loading rods ... only launched one a them a couple three hundred yards down range.
Click to expand...

Really? How did it do for accuracy? :D

I suggested shutting it down because the 'information' that we were getting had become more of a libel than truth and useful. I'd rather learn from the forums or be entertained. I saw this as becoming a thread for spreading libel as opposed to the truth, and that, is not educational or entertaining.

That's why I suggested it be locked. not because of anything that Smokinggun, Articap, Frontiergander or some others were putting here, but rather a couple in the minority. That's all.

Okay, okay, off my soapbox. (Why is it people expect lawyers not to be talkative?)

The Doc is out now. :cool:
 
Good thread I see no need to shut it down...I din't throw my 1988 CVA 1863 Remington Zouave .58CAL away. I'll still shoot 500gr minee' Ball through it, but no more loading rods ... only launched one a them a couple three hundred yards down range. When I first got it.
Find it nawww...got a replacement from Dixie Gun Works :O)
(but it did kick a hair!)
Click to expand...

LOL, back in the early seventys I shot with the North-South Skrmish Assoication, At the spring national shoot one May, the whole eight member squad of a team for some unkown reason (to me anyway) shot the steel ramrods of their .58 cal muskets downrange at the target (a frame made out of two by fours holding a cardboard backer with clay targets attached). They knocked down the entire frame.:) Needless to say they were disqualified and put on probation for a good while.
 
I don't care who it is that whinges and screams "Shut'r down."

You got a thread going, and you all of a sudden want to put a stop to it.

Get off that thread if you don't like it. You have to click to read. You don't wanna, don't click.

Stay off and maybe there will be more interesting replies that others will enjoy.

You are not in any way an arbiter.

Lawyer or no, dialogue is good. It does not have to be filtered through a lawyer. In court, mebbe, but not on a discussion board.

One time I was told I should HAVE a lawyer, he sold me down the river. Give me 600 bucks and I'll do what you can do yourself for free. But I'll get you processed at 9 AM instead of you sitting in the Courthouse till the end of the day's session.
Cheers,

George
 
One time I was told I should HAVE a lawyer, he sold me down the river. Give me 600 bucks and I'll do what you can do yourself for free. But I'll get you processed at 9 AM instead of you sitting in the Courthouse till the end of the day's session.
Cheers,

George
Click to expand...

So, you get ticked at me because you don't like the lawyer you chose? That's smart. Of course, you asked him what he would be doing for the $600.00 right? And, you were in the right, correct? Not like you could be in the wrong on something?

So, tell me, being as smart as you are obviously, how is it that a pack of lies is 'dialogue'? Did you read what was being said? Did you go to that webpage and look through those cases like I did?

And if you did do that, did you actually understand what was being said?

George, as I said before, I come here for entertainment and learning. Just what in your post is entertainment and learning. Sure, I could choose not to read this thread, which if you look, I did not start, but I did read it, and I saw that it was not true, and I said that.

You must have a problem with that. So just what is your problem? You don't like truth? You want people to be needlessly afraid? You want bad things to happen to good folks? You must, if you want lies to continue to be spread.

A long time ago, I decided I was a lazy person. I don't like to dicker, I don't like to haggle. I put it on the bottom line and that's that.

Stay off and maybe there will be more interesting replies that others will enjoy.
Click to expand...

I take it you read the National Enquierer or some other rag like that and think its' news.

You are lucky today, George. Usually, I get to charge people who don't have a clue in order to clue them in. Today, you got it free!

The Doc is out now. :cool:
 
Doc,

I would like for people to simply stop telling the Mods to "Shut this down." If they haven't, they must not think it is necessary.

'Nother "Doc" on a 'nother board that likes to do that, too. You didn't start this thread, but you did call for it to end. He starts them then tries to shut them down.

Information is always useful. The more you have, the better decision you can make. Shutting this thread will shut off any further spread of information regarding the CVA matter.

I did not go to the site to read about it. I'm not concerned, insofar as I don't have nor do I plan to buy a CVA rifle. I shoot strictly BP revolvers. My metallics have been idle for years.

As to the case above, I do believe the man said his was indeed one of the rifles under recall, and the accident happened after the recall was announced. I'd have to go back too far to ascertain that. Did he buy it new and register it with the mfg.? That would be the only more or less sure way to learn OF a recall. I think recalls are way underpublicized.

As to the lawyer it took me months to fire, simple thing. DUI. "I'll get you off."
Squire's office, "We'll take ARD." Bull****. I could have done that myself. BAC was over. I admit that. So?

Lawyers being lawyers, called another who brags about his success with DUI. "Oh, sure, I can get you out of it." "OK, the other lawyer screwed me." "What other lawyer?" "The one I fired." "Nope, I can't help you at all."

A funny thing about lawyers is you CAN'T fire them. When you do, they petition the court and the court allows them to withdraw. "You can't fire me. I quit." Kind of like corporate execs.

And, nope. Don't read any of the rags you allude to. I do read about all the current event mags on the rack, political mags from both sides.

You haven't clued me in at all. And your input in the last post is worth exactly your fee. Nada.

I'm done with this conversation.

Cheers,

George
 
DrLaw??

OK Doc Law:

Here is the horses mouth. First thing that I will do is challenge you on your credentials as to being an attorney. All of the cases that you cited as being dismissed or dismissed with prejudice so CVA / Dikar / BPI and friends were not at fault or that the case was dismissed as to them and going forward as to the other party defendants shows me how little that you know about the law, or how much that you have forgotten. By the way, I am not an attorney but I did complete my Paralegal studies at the University of Tulsa, with Honors. Oh, and I have experience in law enforcement which is how I became a private investigator. Back to Law 101. Anytime that a case settles as to one or all of the parties the case is dismissed, with prejudice, as to that party, meaning that the case can not be refiled by the plaintiff, even if he gets buyers remorse or finds out that another plaintifff got millions when he only got a few thousand. He doesn't get a second bite at the apple. This you should have learned in your first year of law school. Dismissal with Prejudice always follows a settlement. In fact, as I am sure that you know, the settlement documents will include language requiring this, unless of course the defendant is very careless. By the way, where did you go to law school and what state(s) are you licensed to practice in? The Katzenmeier verdict said that the plaintiff did not prove his case, not that Dikar/CVA didn't manufacture a defective firearm. Since you are an attorney you probably know that the jury can render their verdict for any number of reasons, i.e., they just didn't get it, they didn't like the plaintiff, they were tired of driving to and from the federal courthouse, it was Friday and getting close to Christmas and they were tired of having spent 2 weeks of their life at this trial, etc. By the way, the jury was hung earlier in the day and had sent a note to the judge stating that. He asked them to continue deliberations on that Friday afternoon. I can assure you DrLaw that Bazzel, Buschelman, Conger, Kohn and all of the other plaintiff's received settlements, actually monetary payment, either from Dikar, CVA, BPI or their insurers or a combination of all. As to Randy Wakeman and the Katzenmeier trial, you need to check your information on this as well. Wakeman was not prohibited from testifying at trial, the Court only limited what he could testify to since he had not been qualified under the Daubert decision. Being an attorney I'm sure you know all about Daubert. I noticed that you sighted the PD report in Erik Zenger's case but not the PD report in the Neal case. Why not take that one to task as well? Oh, I see no purpose in closing down a perfectly good thread. Why would you want to limit consumers from getting facts. They get fed enough "other stuff" through marketing and advertising. So, with all of this said, I'm a first timer to this website and glad to be here and, glad to answer any questions that I can, either here in the open, or by email.

Dean Wise
info@wiseinvestigations.com
 
Deanwise -

Welcome to the forum.

and....

If you completed paralegal studies with honors at the University of Tulsa, how come you do not know how to spell "cited"?
 
DrLaw:

You wrote:

"I don't think I am going to check any more cases. Here is the bottom line.

Anybody can be sued anytime, anywhere for anything. The thing is that you have to have proof to have the case go on. None of these cases apparently did that I reviewed from that page against CVA.

Frankly, the page now sounds libelous as against CVA since they say CVA is dangerous, but the results of the suits are to the contrary. Libel is the spreading of falsehoods, knowingly, in print or media.

I think it is about time for the moderators to shut this thread down.

How about it Moderators?

The Doc is out now.
__________________
General McAuliffe said it best "Nuts." "

DrLaw:

It is true, that "Anybody can be sued anytime, anywhere for anything."

BUT, you don't have to prove anything for a case to go to trial. You bring a lawsuit, conduct discovery, and respond to motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss, etc. That's why cases go to trial, to prove to the jury that what you allege is true. If the defendants want to allege it "ain't so" in a motion for summary judgment, they do that, through motions, and the Court decides. Very simple. (All of this education in the legal process is coming to you, DrLaw, free of charge.)

You write, the cases don't "go on". Back to legal classes for you. (Does the state, where you are licensed, not require a degree in law?) What state was that? Come on, give us your state and bar license number. Let's all be open and honest here. Are you really an attorney? Do you work for someone with a vested interest here?

If the web site information is, as you claim, "libelous" or "libel" and "spreading "falsehoods" why hasn't Dikar, BPI, CVA, D.C. 1980 filed an injuction (do you know what that is) or filed a lawsuit against me or cvaguncases.com for libel or to shut down cvaguncases.com? The attorney for Dikar/BPI knows where the courthouse is in Tulsa, OK. In fact, he has been to my office.

I left off my last posting that I am the owner and developer of cvaguncases.com. DrLaw, why don't you file something, as a friend of the court, to defend CVA / BPI / D.C. 1980 / Dikar and give me an opportunity to respond on the record?

Dean Wise
owner, cvaguncases.com
 
mykeal:

cite (st)
tr.v. cit·ed, cit·ing, cites
1. To quote as an authority or example.
2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.
3.
a. To commend officially for meritorious action in military service.
b. To honor formally.
4. To summon before a court of law.

Sorry:
What was it that I spelled incorrectly?
 
Cite vs site

mykeal:

There is a difference in web "site" and a legal citation, "cite". I learned that at TU.

I will never say that I don't make typo's or mistakes, but I do try hard not to.

Dean
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top