TexasCHLforum.com

boomerang wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Paying any settlement would encourage similar claims.

It's like giving in to the demands of terrorists, other than temporarily as a feint.

You and I can say this till the cows come home, but for some companies not just rolling in dough to fight cases all the time, sometimes it is cheaper for them to settle out of court than to fight it in court and risk losing. A large portion of suits against large companies are filled with this in mind. They Sue for $100's of millions, but are really only expecting $10's to a few $100 thousand to shut them up. My company gets these cases every once in awhile and they pay up because we have a public image to uphold and don't want that kind of case to go to court and tarnish the name.

seamusTX wrote:I'm curious why a lawyer is filing this suit.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibits lawsuits in state or federal court based on the use or misuse of a firearm that functions as designed. Any judge should throw out the case on preliminary motion. If a biased judge (they exist) allows the case to go to trial and the plaintiff wins, it would be reversed on appeal.

California also has a state supreme court ruling holding that manufacturers cannot be sued in state court for misuse of firearms that function as designed.

- Jim

Out of court settlement. He and the lawyer are hoping that someone settles out of court to keep this under wraps instead of waiting for a "sympathetic" judge to hear the case and make it a national event to rekindle the Brady Campaign's agenda.

THINK OF THE DADS!!!!!!!!!