Gun companies and lawsuits

Gun companies and lawsuits

This is a discussion on Gun companies and lawsuits within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Was curious about how much legal representation cost gun companies. I would imagine that big companies have lawyers already on their staff. Iím not talking ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13
Like Tree14Likes
  • 1 Post By SmoothJazz
  • 1 Post By CG11
  • 1 Post By LimaCharlie
  • 1 Post By SFury
  • 1 Post By dangerranger
  • 1 Post By msgt/ret
  • 1 Post By Havok
  • 1 Post By Mike1956
  • 5 Post By OneGunTX
  • 1 Post By Havok

Thread: Gun companies and lawsuits

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Array SmoothJazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    867

    Gun companies and lawsuits

    Was curious about how much legal representation cost gun companies. I would imagine that big companies have lawyers already on their staff. Iím not talking about the costs of the outcome of lawsuits, but just the cost of legal defense. I suppose that a company could hire outside law firms, which would be an additional unbugeted cost. But is most legal representation provided by ďin houseĒ attorneys?
    CG11 likes this.
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. ~Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Ex Member Array CG11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    NorthWestern Arizona
    Posts
    5,322
    I would imagine there are lawyers on staff to look at advertisements, claims, specs, etc. and determine liability from such things. Since there has been no allowance of people to sue manufacturers "just because", I doubt there are staff on hand for that purpose specifically.
    Swedishsteel likes this.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array LimaCharlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northwest Oregon
    Posts
    14,505
    Most large corporations have a cadre of lawyers with different specializations to keep them out of trouble.
    msgt/ret likes this.
    Second Amendment: The difference between politicians and rulers.
    US Navy - US Army, Retired
    NRA Benefactor Life Member

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,069
    It's not cost effective to have lawyer on hand for all various lawsuits. The bigger the company, the larger the legal department is. As CG11 mentioned, most companies only have lawyers that can comment on, and prevent, most legal problems. An ounce of prevention vs a pound of cure.
    msgt/ret likes this.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,139
    Iím sure it looks like a lot on paper, but they pass it down to the consumer, so itís no big deal for them.
    We get the government we deserve.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array dangerranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Exact center of CA
    Posts
    5,611
    The point of these suits is not to win but to bankrupt the company. The left started using this tactic to rid the world of the Ring of Fire gun makers in the 80's and 90's. The plaintiffs don't really care if they get a dime from the win, they just want to see the industry closed. And the lawyers don't care they get paid either way!
    One of the Bush's signed a law shielding manufactures from frivolous law suits that had nothing to do with product safety, and only focused on what some nut did with the gun. I'm wondering how this suit got around that hurdle?
    Nmuskier likes this.

  8. #7
    Moderator
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    15,538
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerranger View Post
    The point of these suits is not to win but to bankrupt the company. The left started using this tactic to rid the world of the Ring of Fire gun makers in the 80's and 90's. The plaintiffs don't really care if they get a dime from the win, they just want to see the industry closed. And the lawyers don't care they get paid either way!
    One of the Bush's signed a law shielding manufactures from frivolous law suits that had nothing to do with product safety, and only focused on what some nut did with the gun. I'm wondering how this suit got around that hurdle?
    Here is the law you refer to.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protec...ce_in_Arms_Act
    dangerranger likes this.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
    A 9MM MAY expand to .45 but a 45ACP will never shrink to 9MM.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,139
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerranger View Post
    The point of these suits is not to win but to bankrupt the company. The left started using this tactic to rid the world of the Ring of Fire gun makers in the 80's and 90's. The plaintiffs don't really care if they get a dime from the win, they just want to see the industry closed. And the lawyers don't care they get paid either way!
    One of the Bush's signed a law shielding manufactures from frivolous law suits that had nothing to do with product safety, and only focused on what some nut did with the gun. I'm wondering how this suit got around that hurdle?
    The funny thing is they end up bankrupting the people who file the lawsuit, and those who pushed them to file it(Bloomberg, etc) will wash their hands of it and go on about their lives.
    dangerranger likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Iím sure it looks like a lot on paper, but they pass it down to the consumer, so itís no big deal for them.
    Remington has been on the brink of bankruptcy for years, so yes, this is probably a big deal for them.
    Rockymonster likes this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array OneGunTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by SmoothJazz View Post
    Was curious about how much legal representation cost gun companies. I would imagine that big companies have lawyers already on their staff. Iím not talking about the costs of the outcome of lawsuits, but just the cost of legal defense. I suppose that a company could hire outside law firms, which would be an additional unbugeted cost. But is most legal representation provided by ďin houseĒ attorneys?
    Most large gun manufacturers have a head in-house lawyer called a general counsel. In addition, the general counsel may have a some associate general counsel to deal with normal business activities such as contracts with suppliers, mergers, acquistions, regulatory affairs, etc. For most litigation, the company will retain local outside counsel in the venue where the lawsuit is filed because only members of the local bar assocation can practice in front of the local courts. Its a racket. For really large litigation, the companies can retain large outside lawfirms to deal with the litigation that will retain a local counsel so that they can appear in front of the local court.

    How do I know all this you ask? Because when litigation attorneys need someone estimate financial damages and testify in court, they call me. That's my profession, damages expert.
    Annoy a Liberal! Be Conservative and Live within Your Means!

    Epstein Did Not Kill Himself!!

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Remington has been on the brink of bankruptcy for years, so yes, this is probably a big deal for them.
    Remington hasnt exactly had a stellar reputation in years either.
    Rockymonster likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array dangerranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Exact center of CA
    Posts
    5,611
    Quote Originally Posted by msgt/ret View Post
    So if I read that correctly Negligent Entrustment Is what the lawyers are going after and will try to prove that Remington made the gun for the criminal market. Or just did not care if it was used criminally. That will be a stretch to prove when all new guns are sold through licensed dealers who have to submit background checks on the buyer.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerranger View Post
    So if I read that correctly Negligent Entrustment Is what the lawyers are going after and will try to prove that Remington made the gun for the criminal market. Or just did not care if it was used criminally. That will be a stretch to prove when all new guns are sold through licensed dealers who have to submit background checks on the buyer.
    More importantly, who bought the gun? The criminal or someone else? Because the answer was not the criminal, this lawsuit was rightfully tossed out initially. There is no leg to stand on.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •