Bushmaster Responds

[..]

www.bushmaster.com

Bushmaster Responds to Brady Groups False Claim of Victory
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est

Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.

The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.

The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance company’s position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims’ families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.

We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims’ families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!

Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group’s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!

Yeah, and it might rain nickels this afternoon, too.

The sad, sorry, simple truth of the matter is that if the leftist extremists were even remotely concerned about violent crime, they'd abandon their efforts to disarm the law-abiding and focus on the root cause of violent crime: criminals.

 

[Gunrunner]

You got that right Standing Wolf. I get so sick of the leftists always trying to smash down law abiding citizens, and at the same time giving compassion to criminals. What a bunch of cr*p!! Can't those libs see that the criminals are the problem. It's not the tool. It's how the tool is used. Use it in a criminal manner and spend a long time in prison. Use it correctly and you can have whatever tool you want. Hopefully the Brady Group lost a big chunk of change on this one.

 

[El Tejon]

If you have seen the movie THX33 (think that was the movie), you know how insurance defense works. If the money for your robots (lawyers) runs low, you pull the plug.

 

[355sigfan]

I understand Bushmasters reasons but I wish they would have fought. This sets a bad presidence. Now the door is more open to sue gun manufactures and dealers based on a third parties criminal acts.
Pat

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Bushmaster makes good stuff and I understand why they did what they did.

Still feel as if they sold us out though.

The media won't print anything Bushmaster says. Only that they paid and paved the way for the John Edwards of the word to suck the life out of the industry.

I don't thing this is the end. However, it sure as hell didn't help.

 

[madmike]

No, it helps a lot.

Lawyers expect to be paid. A lot of work went into this for discovery and filing, and they got NOTHING. So Brady is out of pocket, the victims got what they wanted, and there was no legal precedent because there was no court case.

If Brady "Wins" suits like that, they'll run out of funds in a hurry.

 

[Wildalaska]

The sad, sorry, simple truth of the matter is that if the leftist extremists were even remotely concerned about violent crime, they'd abandon their efforts to disarm the law-abiding and focus on the root cause of violent crime: criminals.

To the leftist extremists, criminals are, to quote Lenin/Stalin..."socially friendly elements"

Its better to repress the gun owning class enemies..

If you review US politics via Marxist politics, your eyes will open. (weoll not your wolf, yer there alread)

WilddialecticAlaska

 

[one45auto]

Giving someone monetary compensation in such a suit, regardless of the reason, is as good as pleading guilty because in the minds of the general public no one should have to pay for something they didn't do. For a corporation to have paid such a hefty sum leaves a bad impression, not to mention it encourages more frivolous lawsuits by gold-digging relatives, greedy politicians, misguided activists, and ambulance chasing attorneys. They've set a precedent now, and you can be sure that others will point to this case as justification for their own.

On a personal note, let me say that I am deeply disappointed with Bushmaster. Pity is a poor excuse for such a severe lapse in judgement. I'm sorry those families lost loved ones too, and my heart goes out to them just as everyone's does, but were I in charge of Bushmaster I wouldn't have paid them a single cent. Not one. I'd only have told them and their lawyers to plant their lips on my posterior, if they were so inclined.

 

[El Rojo]

Giving someone monetary compensation in such a suit, regardless of the reason, is as good as pleading guilty because in the minds of the general public no one should have to pay for something they didn't do.

How do you know? Are you the general public? Who is this "general public" we are all so afraid of? Anyway Bushmaster would have won, settled, or lost this the Brady group would have still put a spin on it and the liberal media would have still helped them out. You might even be giving the "general public" less credit than is due, they might see right through this. If they aren't smart enought to figure out an insurance settlement when they see it, then they probably aren't smart enough to remember this 2 months from now. If you think suddenly all the lawyers in the land are now aware of this "precedent" when they weren't before, I guess you might as well put yourself in the "general population" catagory. In fact, I would think many lawyers would now think the exact opposite and would balk at the idea of potentially not getting paid. Obviously this case didn't have much merit or the other side wouldn't have settled for insurance money.

They've set a precedent now, and you can be sure that others will point to this case as justification for their own.

Since when did lawyers and "victims" need justification to sue? Innocent victims now have justifcation to sue, but the lawyers don't. Think about it. Everyone gets sued for everything now a days. If you think this is going to be the floodgates that kill the gun industry, I think you miscalculate. The other thing is if you want to stop this kind of lawsuit from happening again, you need to get more active in writing your congressperson and senator. We had a chance to kill this frivalous type of lawsuit (not this one, it was specifically exempt), but we failed.

I'd only have told them and their lawyers to plant their lips on my posterior, if they were so inclined.

And how would that have looked to the "general public"? "Gun manufacturer tells innocent victims to kiss his ass." Yeah, that is much better than quietly settling and it not costing you much more than maybe a few extra bucks in insurance premiums and the rest of the lawyer scum seeing that such suits are not that profitable, but actually a huge loss of revenue. Brillant plan to bring the "general public" to our side.

 

[one45auto]

El Rojo,

With regard to public opinion, one need look no further than Michael Jackson's first accusation of child molestation. I'm sure you'll recall that his first accuser, many years ago, settled out of court at his request? Tell me, honestly, how many people have you talked to in the intervening years genuinely believe he paid the family off because he didn't have anything to hide or wasn't guilty? I haven't met anyone who believes that, not one. On the contrary, they've repeatedly said that he must've been guilty, otherwise why would he have parted with several million dollars? Remember the old saying, "where there's smoke, there's fire?" How many times have you heard people repeat that phrase about something - anything?

If your neighbor accused you of doing something you clearly hadn't done, and wanted a sizeable portion of your bank account as compensation, would you settle? Would you pay them off with your hard earned dollars, money you'd scrimped and sacrificed to save? I wouldn't. My sister was the victim of a frivolous lawsuit and she fought like hell until the plaintiff lost the case, despite constant efforts on behalf of the woman's attorneys to settle the case at every step. Take your own poll of public opinion, particularly amongst those with little or no knowledge of firearms, and let us know the results.

As for the settlement encouraging more frivolous suits, I stand by my statement. Just as was the case with the tobacco industry, the activists and attorneys in these kinds of cases are "probing the dam", going from court to court and company to company looking for a crack, however small. All they need is one company to cave in slightly, just one. It doesn't matter why Bushmaster settled, or whether the attorneys in this case got paid. All the general public will see, or the opposition will care about, is that Bushmaster did pay. Someone is slightly wealthier today than they were before the suit, and that's what counts. Your average citizen who's lost a loved one to crime isn't going to wonder if the attorneys will be properly reimbursed for their troubles, they're going to be thinking of either their petty revenge or the money they'll receive as compensation. Bear in mind that some of these anti-gun organizations have attorneys on the payroll or at the least willing to work for free in some cases, so fees are not a primary concern ~ forcing the gun manufacturers into bankruptcy through repeated settlements is, however.


Finally, as for my comment regarding my posterior, I was speaking rhetorically and for myself alone ~ not the company. In so doing I was attempting to express, rather humorously, my own attitude toward settling were I in charge of Bushmaster.

 

[El Rojo]

one45auto,

Bushmaster didn't pay anyone. I don't think you realize this. They did not pay a dime. Their insurance did. You keep mentioning how Bushmaster paid, but that is simply not true. You keep mentioning unrelated scenarios that all deal with a direct payment by the defendant. All $550,000 of those dollars came from their insurance company. You said yourself, "Bear in mind that some of these anti-gun organizations have attorneys on the payroll or at the least willing to work for free in some cases, so fees are not a primary concern ~ forcing the gun manufacturers into bankruptcy through repeated settlements is, however." You prove my point. Bushmaster could have faught this to the bitter end. And if they had, it would have cost them a lot more money in attorney's fees beyond their insurance. Instead, they used their insurance and it didn't cost them anything directly (maybe a higher premium). I am also sure that in the settlement this issue was closed forever. The families' now have no more claims, this things is over! So please make up your mind. Either this settlement cost Bushmaster more or less money. Either lawyers are out to bankrupt the gun industry or they are out to make money. If as you state we need to avoid letting the gun companies go bankrupt, we need to pass legislation to protect them and/or we need to support their efforts to reduce costs by settling with no liability and we need to purchase more of their products or donate to their legal defense. What we can't do is second guess their efforts to reduce these costs while hording our money as a result of the flawed idea that we will ever get a fair shake in the media. Not to mention, your lively hood isn't up for a 2nd Amendment debate and it is a lot easier to armchair quaterback.

I think comparing the Michael Jackson saga with the general public to the assault weapons issue with the general public is a big stretch. Michael Jackson is a very interesting freak and his public life is way interesting to the "general public". Lets face it, assault weapons don't hold near the same appeal. And again, what does it matter what the general public feels when you have a liberal media that is going to blow anything and everything out of proportion? It is our duty more than ever to talk to our friends about assault weapons. I talked to some employees about it Friday, I talked to my church group about it tonight. All of them our "pro-gun", but not all of them are pro-assault weapons. At least they know what an assault weapon is and what it is classified as now. It doesn't matter how Bushmaster settles or doesn't settle, there will always be this stigma by the anti-gun media unless we do something to stop it.

I respect some of your desire to fight every battle to the bitter end. I also respect Bushmaster's decision to not pay a dime of their own money and to settle this thing with no admition of liability and by setting no legal precedent, but actually showing lawyers this is a no win situation for them. I just can't believe how many 2nd Amendment supports think this case means anything. It means nothing. It means as much as all of this assault weapons hype. It is the liberal media and anti-gun crowd trying to set the agenda and trying to get public opinion on their side. However, when it comes down to it, guess who is scared to take on the NRA? Every liberal politician in a battleground district. How do we know? The AWB expired. Guess what isn't a big campaign issue this election? Guns. Why not? Some would say it cost Gore the election in 2000. Many say the NRA cost the Democrats Congress in 1994. Kerry knows that and that is why he is our wolf in sheep's clothing.

This Bushmaster thing is already dead. The public doesn't know anything about it. They are too busy hearing about assault weapons right now. In a few weeks, that too will be old news. All of this is going to pass just like the uninteresting news it is to the vast majority of Americans. Too many important events like the Scott Peterson trial, the Michael Jackson trial, the Koby Bryant civil case are all on the "general public's" mind. They don't care about guns. And when they do hear about guns, it isn't going to be through you guys who are so concerned about our image in the media and with the general ignorant public. I challenge you to change that. If I am wrong and you are already talking to people and educating them, I would be more than happy to eat crow.