TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... tml?pg=all

The gun had been ziptied by the seller but had a magazine in it????

SIA

This is another example of inept journalism. There is no way the incident could have happened the it was described in the article. I'm just glad no one was hurt, at least not seriously hurt. This is the kind of crap that makes the Dallas Gun Show have the rules they have.

Lynyrd wrote:This is another example of inept journalism. There is no way the incident could have happened the it was described in the article. I'm just glad no one was hurt, at least not seriously hurt. This is the kind of crap that makes the Dallas Gun Show have the rules they have.

The arbitrary and capricious Dallas Gun Show rules, which illegally restrict CC, would have done NOTHING to stop this incident. It could have happened exactly as described. This appears to have been a negligent (private?) seller who failed to clear the firearm properly before displaying it for sale.

If you are familiar at all with the Colt .45, the factory mags sit absolutely flush with the bottom of the grip and there is no obvious protruding bulbous magazine bottom as there would be on some other types of 1911's or most polymer pistols (there is just an almost imperceptible metal tab that sticks out the front of the grip). It is imperative to follow the rules of safe gun handling and drop the mag, rack the Colt at least three times, the visually (and even physically) inspect to ensure that there is no round remaining. The was a clear case of a very negligent discharge IMHO.

This was not, refreshingly, an example of inept journalism.

Bitter Clinger wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:This is another example of inept journalism. There is no way the incident could have happened the it was described in the article. I'm just glad no one was hurt, at least not seriously hurt. This is the kind of crap that makes the Dallas Gun Show have the rules they have.

The arbitrary and capricious Dallas Gun Show rules, which illegally restrict CC, would have done NOTHING to stop this incident. It could have happened exactly as described. This appears to have been a negligent (private?) seller who failed to clear the firearm properly before displaying it for sale.

If you are familiar at all with the Colt .45, the factory mags sit absolutely flush with the bottom of the grip and there is no obvious protruding magazine bottom as there would be on some other types of 1911's or most polymer pistols. It is imperative to follow the rules of safe gun handling and drop the mag, rack the Colt at least three times, the visually (and even physically) inspect to ensure that there is no round remaining. The was a clear case of a very negligent discharge IMHO.

This was not, refreshingly, an example of inept journalism.

You may be correct sir. After thinking about this a bit, IF the seller had the gun zip tied through the barrel with the slide open and the slide lock engaged, and IF he had put a magazine in with a round in it, this could have happened. If the seller had the slide open and the gun zip tied through the magazine well, AND the seller left a round in the chamber (how did it stay there when the slide was pulled back) then the article is incorrect.

Whatever the case, I can't say that I know all the exact motivations behind why the Dallas gun show made the rule it made. I only know what I was told by someone on the board of the club. The worries about an ND was what he cited. Do I agree? No? Do I thing they should place any restrictions on LTC holders? No.

AndyC wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:The gun had been ziptied by the seller but had a magazine in it????

Two dummies, buyer and seller both.

I'm still struggling to see how you could zip tie a 1911, insert a magazine, and chamber a round. The tie would either have to go down through the mag well, or down the barrel.

Some of you seem to be overlooking this critical piece of journalism. It explains how this happened.

The buyer was interested in a Colt .45 911 handgun, Carriger said. The seller had all of his weapons zip tied and the potential buyer asked him to cut the zip tie so he could further examine the gun.

This is clearly a case of negligence leading to an accidental discharge because neither the seller or buyer understood the manual of arms for the highly vaunted "Colt .45 911". Considering the negligence and the zip tie was removed, it's not hard to see how the "911" could be fired. Apparently, since the magazine was already inserted, the zip tie may have been routed through the chamber and down the barrel.

mojo84 wrote:
This is clearly a case of negligence leading to an accidental discharge because neither the seller or buyer understood the manual of arms for the highly vaunted Colt .45 911. Considering the negligence and the zip tie was removed, it's not hard to see how the "911" could be fired. Apparently, since the magazine was already inserted, the zip tie may have been routed through the chamber and down the barrel.

The negligence clearly falls on the seller. Any seller should assume that the potential buyer hasn't a clue and could be a first time buyer. It is the seller's responsibility to ensure the gun is clear and safe before. It is the seller's responsibility to ensure the buyer is being safe.

I'm going to guess that the chamber was empty and there was at least one round in the inserted magazine. The zip tie was running through the barrel and the slide was locked back. Zip tie gets cut, buyer hits the slide stop, chambering a round. Buyer then checks out the trigger pull and gun goes bang. Thankfully at least one of the gun safety rules was in place as the gun was pointed in a safe direction.

The rules that many gun show illegally put in place restricting concealed carry would not have prevented this ND.

Liberty wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
This is clearly a case of negligence leading to an accidental discharge because neither the seller or buyer understood the manual of arms for the highly vaunted Colt .45 911. Considering the negligence and the zip tie was removed, it's not hard to see how the "911" could be fired. Apparently, since the magazine was already inserted, the zip tie may have been routed through the chamber and down the barrel.

The negligence clearly falls on the seller. Any seller should assume that the potential buyer hasn't a clue and could be a first time buyer. It is the seller's responsibility to ensure the gun is clear and safe before. It is the seller's responsibility to ensure the buyer is being safe.

You apparently missed the sarcasm and point of my post. Can you explain to me the manual of arms for a "Colt .45 911"?

However, I disagree with your contention it is only the sellers responsibility and he is the only one negligent. Both parties are responsible for making sure the gun is safe and clear. The seller before handing the gun over and the potential buyer once he received received it.

Along with liberty comes being responsible for one's own actions.

I agree that we all are responsible for any firearm that we handle, however, a seller can not assume that anyone who handles their wares is knowledgeable enough to understand how to safely handle a weapon that is handed to them. I am not trying to claim that we as potential buyers are not to be safe with every weapon we handle, but rather sellers should not expect their customers to have a clue about how to handle a weapon safely.
Someone put a loaded magazine into a gun, I don't know how the zip tie was run through, but I can't imagine overlooking a loaded mag while zipping it or installing a loaded mag into a zipped gun without noticing.

There is no excuse for a gun owner to not to understand the rules and not do a safety check first. I understand where you are coming from, but I think it would be presumptuous to assume that all potential buyers at a gun show have ever handled a gun before. Today, there are more first-time buyers today than ever before.

It was the seller / owner's primary responsibility to ensure the gun was properly clear and that it would remain so until it left his possession. It was the potential buyer's responsibility (though he/she may not have known how to ensure meeting it) to check and make certain the gun was clear. The potential buyer's responsibility is there but clearly secondary to that of the seller / owner from my perspective.

It is fortunate that the rule "ALWAYS keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction" was adhered to -- at least for the moment the trigger was pressed.

Liberty wrote:I agree that we all are responsible for any firearm that we handle, however, a seller can not assume that anyone who handles their wares is knowledgeable enough to understand how to safely handle a weapon that is handed to them. I am not trying to claim that we as potential buyers are not to be safe with every weapon we handle, but rather sellers should not expect their customers to have a clue about how to handle a weapon safely.
Someone put a loaded magazine into a gun, I don't know how the zip tie was run through, but I can't imagine overlooking a loaded mag while zipping it or installing a loaded mag into a zipped gun without noticing.

There is no excuse for a gun owner to not to understand the rules and not do a safety check first. I understand where you are coming from, but I think it would be presumptuous to assume that all potential buyers at a gun show have ever handled a gun before. Today, there are more first-time buyers today than ever before.

If they both would have fulfilled their individual responsibility, it would not have happened. I am not trying to relieve the seller of his responsibility. I am saying they are both responsible. One doesn't not absolved the other of their responsibility.

I'm not trying to argue for arguments sake. I am making a point BOTH are responsible for safety checking and making sure the gun is clear. Ignorance is no excuse for either party.