Parsons v. Colt (Suing Gun Makers for Las Vegas shooting)

[mit31]

"U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon, a Barack Obama appointee, found in a 15-page order that Colt’s Manufacturing and other gun makers and dealers whose AR-15 rifles were used in the mass shooting could not dodge a lawsuit by one of the victim’s family.

Gordon said use of modified AR-15s in a mass shooting was “reasonably foreseeable.” He compared the danger of AR-15s to that of machine guns,..."

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/parsonsvcoltorder.pdf

So PLCAA prohibits claims against firearms manufacturers and sellers for damages related to a third party’s misuse of a firearm... except when a judge decides for no reason that it doesn't.

He also implies that the only difference between an M-16 and an AR is the swapping of a selector (never mind actual machining needed), as well as says that "colt continued to make AR-15's with a stock that is easily removable so as to allow a bump stock to be attached." LOL WUT? A federal judge in a published order is stating that colt can be sued because their stocks are not permanently welded to the upper. He continually writes as if bump stocks can only be attached to AR-15's versus ALL rifles, and never addresses the fact that they were LEGAL for purchase at the time of the incident.

What a load.

[bigstick61]

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/parsonsvcoltorder.pdf

Technically, no machining required. If you have a low-shelf lower and M16 BCG, all you need is a cut and bent coat hanger to go full auto. An SOT showed a bunch of us how to do it and then demonstrated it.

I do agree that this lawsuit is a load of B.S., though. Isn't this preempted by law? "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" or something like that?

[pacrat]

"U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon, a Barack Obama appointee,

An Obama clown trying to subvert a pro 2A law.

Imagine that.

[abinsinia]

I think the judge is trying to use the ATF rule change which outlawed bump stocks to rule that a bump stock is a machine gun, and Colt allows them to connect on their guns so illegal. It's scary that this contentious rule change could be used in that way. That ATF rule change is the gift that keeps on giving.

[BryMan92]

I think the judge is trying to use the ATF rule change which outlawed bump stocks to rule that a bump stock is a machine gun, and Colt allows them to connect on their guns so illegal. It's scary that this contentious rule change could be used in that way. That ATF rule change is the gift that keeps on giving.

BINGO.

[RickD427]

Technically, no machining required. If you have a low-shelf lower and M16 BCG, all you need is a cut and bent coat hanger to go full auto. An SOT showed a bunch of us how to do it and then demonstrated it.

I do agree that this lawsuit is a load of B.S., though. Isn't this preempted by law? "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" or something like that?

Bigstick,

The demo of turning an AR-15 into a full auto using a paper clip, or cut piece of coat hanger has been around for a long time and is somewhat deceptive.

The trick works by holding the disconnector down so that the weapon becomes a "slam-fire" open bolt machine gun.

Colt engineered the civilian AR-15 with a sloped rear end of the bolt carrier so that hammer would ride down the slope and not create a "slam fire." Every weapon that I have seen used for the "Paper Clip" demo had been modified with a full-auto bolt carrier with the squared rear edge. A lot of the demos have also used softer pistol primers to aid in the slam-fire.

If you try the same demo with factory ammo and an AR-15 bolt carrier, you're not gonna see full-auto fire.

[BobB35]

At what point does it become apparent even to Justice Roberts that there are Obama judges, Bush judges, Clinton judges, etc and they can all look at a case and come to 180 degree opposite conclusions?

When the law is that vague and open to interpretation it really is no longer the law, it is just the opinion of people with agenda and we are sliding to tyranny.

The law without consistent interpretation is no longer a protection is it a weapon and under the Trump Admin this has become very apparent as activist judges have throw up wild *** rulings time and again when they are clearly constitutional.

Until there are consequences for poor judicial decisions this will continue. Easy to fix for all but they supreme court. The congress could redefine "Good Behavior" to mean you have to be in line with senior court precedent and if you get overturned too many times you are automatically impeached. Only way to fix this problem

[command_liner]

At what point does it become apparent even to Justice Roberts that there are Obama judges, Bush judges, Clinton judges, etc and they can all look at a case and come to 180 degree opposite conclusions?

When the law is that vague and open to interpretation it really is no longer the law, it is just the opinion of people with agenda and we are sliding to tyranny.

The law without consistent interpretation is no longer a protection is it a weapon and under the Trump Admin this has become very apparent as activist judges have throw up wild *** rulings time and again when they are clearly constitutional.

Until there are consequences for poor judicial decisions this will continue. Easy to fix for all but they supreme court. The congress could redefine "Good Behavior" to mean you have to be in line with senior court precedent and if you get overturned too many times you are automatically impeached. Only way to fix this problem

Echos of Federalist 62! They knew then what we know now.

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

A Federal bureaucracy with a tenuous constitutionality changes the meaning of written law at will, and then third parties file lawsuits based on the new meaning of the old text. All while the validity of the first change is still being litigated... Federalist 62 was supposed to be a warning about how not to proceed, not a game plan for power grab.

[kuug]

At what point does it become apparent even to Justice Roberts that there are Obama judges, Bush judges, Clinton judges, etc and they can all look at a case and come to 180 degree opposite conclusions?

When the law is that vague and open to interpretation it really is no longer the law, it is just the opinion of people with agenda and we are sliding to tyranny.

The law without consistent interpretation is no longer a protection is it a weapon and under the Trump Admin this has become very apparent as activist judges have throw up wild *** rulings time and again when they are clearly constitutional.

Until there are consequences for poor judicial decisions this will continue. Easy to fix for all but they supreme court. The congress could redefine "Good Behavior" to mean you have to be in line with senior court precedent and if you get overturned too many times you are automatically impeached. Only way to fix this problem

Roberts is well aware of the partisan nature of judges. His attempts to make the court appear neutral are a charade.

[jwkincal]

Bigstick,

The demo of turning an AR-15 into a full auto using a paper clip, or cut piece of coat hanger has been around for a long time and is somewhat deceptive.

The trick works by holding the disconnector down so that the weapon becomes a "slam-fire" open bolt machine gun.

Colt engineered the civilian AR-15 with a sloped rear end of the bolt carrier so that hammer would ride down the slope and not create a "slam fire." Every weapon that I have seen used for the "Paper Clip" demo had been modified with a full-auto bolt carrier with the squared read edge. A lot of the demos have also used softer pistol primers to aid in the slam-fire.

If you try the same demo with factory ammo and an AR-15 bolt carrier, you're not gonna see full-auto fire.

Yeah, not only that, it won't work with an M-16 and factory ammo. I had an M-16 when I was in the Army which had the auto sear spring unseated. This produced exactly the situation you describe; a "slam fire" configuration. The result was, if you flipped it over to full-auto, it would fire the first cartridge, load the next, dent the primer, but not fire it. This is obviously with an M-16 lower and and M-16 bolt carrier, so I'm extremely dubious that an AR-15 could be easily modded to work under conditions that an M-16 failed.

The sucky part was that due to the nature of the misconfiguration, the rifle would pass the function check, so I repeatedly informed the armorer, "Sergeant, it doesn't fire auto!" and he'd run the function check and say "No, it's fine!"

I was but a green young lad, and I knew roughly what might be the problem, but had no idea how to fix it. One day I am cleaning my rifle and the SMAJ walks by (right shoulder Electric Butterknife, tabbed and everything), in a casual glance notices the problem, "That rifle won't fire auto!"

"That's right, Sergeant Major," I reply, "but it passes the function check so the armorer doesn't believe me!"

"Here, let me see that..." he grabs a pair of needlenose from the comms toolkit, fiddles with the fire control group for a couple seconds, "there you go!"

Gotta love them Green Berets.

[mit31]

It SHOULD. But this judge has decided it doesn't.

I do agree that this lawsuit is a load of B.S., though. Isn't this preempted by law? "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" or something like that?

[abinsinia]

Do civilian Colt's come with the modified hammer?



If not I think you would have to change the hammer to the full auto hammer.

[RickD427]

Do civilian Colt's come with the modified hammer?



If not I think you would have to change the hammer to the full auto hammer.

Civilian Colt's do come with the AR-15 style hammer. The difference is that the AR-15 hammer does not have the notch at the rear of the top that engages the auto sear. There is also a cut-away notch on the forward upper edge of the hammer face of the AR-15 hammer. This was designed to foul on the area of the firing pin left exposed by the AR-15 bolt carrier and additionally prevent a "Slam Fire." That function of the forward facing notch is defeated when a M-16 bolt carrier is used.

The full auto (M-16) hammer is not needed for the "Paper Clip" demo conversion. There is no auto sear in the firing sequence and that notch serves no purpose in the conversion. The way the "Slam Fire" works is that the hammer is held back until the bolt is very nearly closed, and then it falls against the firing pin. The sharp corner at the rear, lower edge of the M-16 bolt carrier makes this possible. The AR-15 bolt carrier is ramped in this area so that hammer will "ride down" as the bolt carrier assembly closes without enough speed to fire the weapon. The corresponding geometry on the hammer is the area between the pivot pin and the hammer face. That geometry is the same on both hammers.