TexasCHLforum.com

That suit was initiated two years ago. That's rather quick for resolution of a civil lawsuit.

I know it's an anecdote and not statistics, but I was on a civil jury in a case where the initial incident had occurred five years earlier. The case record was literally a foot high.

- Jim

What would be the point? I think they guy probably got the memo by now, and I rather doubt that he is currently authorized to carry a handgun.

This whole episode is just further proof that laws do not prevent either crimes or negligent mishaps, and LEOs are not immune from mental flatulence.

We can only hope that others learn from his example.

- Jim

Walkin' Jack wrote:I don't know about y'all but I'd like to know how this one turns out.

I set up a Google alert on the plaintiff's name. The only things that have showed up are some repostings on blogs.

- Jim

I don't see why the manufacturers would give them a nickel. Every lawsuit against a manufacturer or dealer was thrown out after the PLCA passed, except for those in the court of one Judge Weinstein, who was overruled. The plaintiffs don't get to pick the judge, and they have a limited choice of venues.

Paying any settlement would encourage similar claims.

- Jim

The shame of it is that the lawsuit has been filed. The brief should state the facts, whether the weapon was in the back seat or the man was wearing it.

- Jim

Here's a different version: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9834513

Enrique Chavez of Anaheim was shot in the back by his 3-year-old son after the boy grabbed his father's Glock 21 ... from the back seat of his pickup truck.

This statement is ambiguous. It can be read (at least) two ways:

• The pistol was lying in the back seat of the vehicle (presumably in a holster).
• The man was wearing the pistol in a holster, and the boy reached forward and grabbed it.

- Jim

It is possible to shoot yourself in the back, using with a small-of-back holster and poor handling.

However, if this story holds water, there would have to be a bullet hole through the seat back. I'm also guessing that investigators swab for powder residue when they investigate this kind of event. They would know who did and didn't pull the trigger.

- Jim

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