Teen Paralyzed in Accidental Shooting Files Bid to Buy Gun's Manufacturer

[Blackaxe]

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) - A California teenager left paralyzed by an accidental shooting a decade ago placed a bid in federal bankruptcy court Friday to buy the flawed handgun's manufacturer so he can shut it down.

Brandon Maxfield, 17, raised $175,000, much of it through his Web site, to buy bankrupt Bryco Arms of Costa Mesa, Calif. He wants to melt down 70,000 unassembled guns and close the company for good.

Bryco filed for bankruptcy in 2003 after a jury awarded the teenager $51 million in damages in a lawsuit.

Maxfield's bid to purchase Bryco was $25,000 more than the $150,000 accepted by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Jerry Funk from Paul Jiminez, the company's former manager.


http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBQH0WUGWD.html

[hightime]

1. I like guns but I love this man's thinking. Buy it , do whatever you wish.

[girl gone mad]

2. From Brandon's website:

When he was seven years old, Brandon Maxfield was accidentally shot in the face, becoming permanently paralyzed below the neck.

The pistol that discharged was deliberately designed so that its safety had to be removed while being unloaded, making the trigger active and accidents more likely.

A unanimous jury found Bryco Arms, the manufacturer of the pistol, responsible for its defective design and for Brandon's injuries and medical expenses. Rather than redesign the pistols and fairly compensate Brandon, Bryco Arms and the pistol's designer Bruce Jennings declared bankruptcy, and are now attempting to reorganize under a new name to continue making the same defective “Saturday Night Specials,” placing more innocent children at risk.


http://www.brandonsarms.org


It sounds like they only declared bankruptcy to avoid paying the court-ordered restitution, and now they intend to re-open the factory and start selling the same defective guns.

[sendero]

3. I believe in gun rights...

.... but a manufacturer negligent enough to make this mistake should not be in business.

"Brandon, a resident of Mendocino County north of San Francisco, was shot in 1994 by a baby sitter who was trying to unload a .380-caliber Bryco handgun. The shooting left him a quadriplegic. Because of the gun's design, its safety mechanism had to be released to unload the round in the semiautomatic's chamber."

[Jack_DeLeon]

5. Where is the negligence?

While I dont doubt that this company probably makes crappy guns.

Why was this babysitter handling this gun and why was she pointing it at the child, that too seems quite neglegent to me.

FWIW I cant unload a chambered round in my 1911 (the handgun our military used thoughout most of the 20th century) with the safety engaged.

[JayS]

6. I think the design of the safety mechanism was what the jury...

...said was defective, even though it did meet federal guidelines. (and yes, the company makes a crappy product and the owner is sleazy)

If I remember correctly, the baby sitter was a fifteen year old boy. He claimed that he thought an adult told him to go get the gun and when he was unloading it, the gun went off and struck the child. This does not pass the smell test to me.

[sendero]

7. The negligence....

... is in building a gun that cannot have the safety engaged while removing a cartridge from the chamber.

Removing the cartridge in often an inherently clumsy operation involving both hands in a non-trivial action. If the gun safety cannot be engaged at that time, it is near impossible to unload the gun safely IMHO.

This is a pointless design defect that frankly (and remember boys and girls, Billy (me) is pro-gun rights) should be against Federal regulations. There is simply no good reason for a gun with this design defect to exist.

People should have a right to own guns, that is quite separate from the obligation of manufacturers to follow simple common sense when making a gun.

[Jack_DeLeon]

9. Which guns allow you to unchamber a round with the safety on?

I'm only really familiar with my SA 1911. I had never tried to unchamber a round with the safety on before, but I was pretty sure it wouldnt work, but testing it out right now it cant be done.

If you arent familar with them they have a thumb safety which in addition to preventing the trigger from being pulled, it also locks the hammer, and prevents the slide from being pulled back.

So with the safety engaged it would be impossible to cycle the slide to unchamber a round. Are the manufacturers of these pistols negligent?

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-ms.shtml

Remember these pistols have been used by our military since 1911, and are also used by law enforcement.

So are they using defective weapons?

Also I'm curious which modern handguns allow the slide to be cycled so you can remove a round in the chamber while the safety is on.

I've fired other handguns at the range but I have never tried to unchamber a round while the safety was on. I'm not trying to imply that its impossible in all guns, I've just never tried it and am wondering which guns have this feature.

[JayS]

13. I checked the semi-automatics that I use for plinking and they...

...all require the safety to be off to un-chamber the last round. Sounds like a jury that decides guilt or innocence based on emotion and not law. That is quite the trend these days.

[pinniped]

18. 92 and USP are a couple.

The 92 has an excellent safety which when engaged blocks the hammer from striking the firing pin.

But no question, "Ring of Fire" guns are a POS and it probably would've blown up in someone's face regardless of the safety.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. one more thing...

Removing the cartridge in often an inherently clumsy operation involving both hands in a non-trivial action. If the gun safety cannot be engaged at that time, it is near impossible to unload the gun safely IMHO

I disagree with this statement.

Its no more difficult to unload a weapon than it is to load one.

[iverglas]

19. what are you discussing?

You might want to start your own thread if you want to persuade someone that the jury verdict was improper.

The point of this one was the efforts that the successful plaintiff is making to recover the award that was made.

If the defendant wanted to challenge that award, I'm sure that had means available to it to do so. And if, at the end of the line, it lost, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.

It still owes the money.

And it has not paid.

And the reason that it, the losing defendant corporation, has not paid is not that it is genuinely bankrupt or otherwise unable to pay, it is that it has most of its assets mortgaged to the guy who owns and controls the corporation.

If I lost a big lawsuit and then took all the money out of my savings account and gave it to myself in return for a mortgage to myself on my house, do you think this might fool the person who had, say, slipped on the ice on my uninsured porch and been left in a wheelchair for life? Do you think that I could sell the house and pay myself the money owing on the mortgage and just go buy a house in Florida with the money and say "sorry, that was iverglas's money, not iverglas's money, and you can't have it!" and no court would say otherwise? (Does that even begin to sound like it makes sense?)

Your dislike of the outcome of the legal action, whatever your reasons and however likely (or not) they are to be better than the reasons of a jury that actually heard the evidence and was actually instructed in the law by a judge, have nothing whatsoever to do with the plaintiff's entitlement to collect the damages awarded to him.

Btw --

Why was this babysitter handling this gun and why was she pointing it at the child, that too seems quite neglegent to me.

-- why, clever you. Maybe you'd like to read and acknowledge the facts next time:

Bryco founder Bruce Jennings and his Nevada-based distribution company were ordered to pay $24 million of a $51 million judgment in Maxfield's lawsuit. Maxfield has received $8.7 million - none of it from Jennings or Bryco - from others named in the suit.

I really think you know this already:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/09/BAG3M735SV1.DTL&type=printable

On April 6, 1994, Brandon, then 7, was accidentally shot in the face at his Willits home when a Bryco pistol discharged while a 20-year-old family friend tried to unload it.

An Alameda County jury found Bryco, founder Bruce Jennings and distributor B.L. Jennings partly liable for $24 million in compensatory damages. The panel also assigned some blame to the friend and Brandon's parents.

... and even if you didn't know it already, it strikes me as something you'd want to know before coming out with these opinions ... so I just have to ask why you keep doing it as if you didn't know this, or as if you didn't have the least responsibility to find it out.

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. you seem to be getting very defensive?

deseo, stated that the manufacturer was negligent because of the design of the gun.

I stated that my opinion that the babysitter was probably more negligent. I also stated the fact that a there are better made guns that have the same supposed "defect."

So why should I start my own thread just to rebuke one poster's post, when I could just post it here like I did?

[iverglas]

22. ya think?

"Defensive"? How about "intolerant"? Can ya tell the difference? Can ya guess "intolerant" of what?

A court, properly constituted and applying the relevant law, found that the manufacturer was negligent. And a defendant is engaging in dirty and possibly illegal tricks to avoid complying with the judgment of that court.

That really does look like the issue at present.

My goodness, surely you're not unaware that this tale had been beaten to death and exactly the same convenient tangent gone off on, exactly the same dance danced around exactly the same mulberry bush, more than once already.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=64027

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=65648

Look what the gun fans have to say about Bryco products when nobody's talking about trying to make Bryco pay up for damage that occurred when they were used:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=45506
"P.O.S."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=40414
"obvious junk"

Funny how it becomes the user's fault when something actually goes wrong.


I stated that my opinion that the babysitter was probably more negligent.

Yeah, and it's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. I mean, I've spent as much time there as you spent in the room where the incident in question occurred when it occurred, so my opinion about this is obviously at least as good as your opinion about that.

[Jack_DeLeon]

23. ABBCABB

"Defensive"? How about "intolerant"? Can ya tell the difference? Can ya guess "intolerant" of what?

Other people's opinions or thoughts?

My goodness, surely you're not unaware that this tale had been beaten to death and exactly the same convenient tangent gone off on, exactly the same dance danced around exactly the same mulberry bush, more than once already.

Then why is it in LBN, and so what? How many reposted topics are there in GD, how many rehashed arguments and what not have occured in this whole board?

Now you are going to jump on me because you "this topic has been beaten to death" because there are two threads about it?

Yeah, and it's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. I mean, I've spent as much time there as you spent in the room where the incident in question occurred when it occurred, so my opinion about this is obviously at least as good as your opinion about that.

I dont know what your experience with firearms are, but from your attitude I'd venture to guess that you dont know very much.

Having to have the safety off to unchamber a chambered round is not a defect. I've already shown how one of the most widely used firearms for civillians/military/police in the US functions in the same regard as the firearm in this article. Has our government been using defective handguns for most of the past century?

Additionally its hard to argue that if this gun wasnt pointed at the victim that there would have been an injury.

A court, properly constituted and applying the relevant law, found that the manufacturer was negligent.

Lots of crazy things can happen in court and our justice system is fucked up in lots of ways.

People will convict people with little evidence, people will acquit people despite overwhelming evidence, Murderers sometimes get off with a slap on the wrist, non-violent criminals get put away for a long time.

If the sole reason that the jury voted against the defendent was because it was impossible to unchamber a round with the safety off then I think that was wrong.

But thats just my opinion, according to you courts are always right. I guess the Supreme Court must be right then when they elected Bush. :eyes:

And a defendant is engaging in dirty and possibly illegal tricks to avoid complying with the judgment of that court.

That really does look like the issue at present.

Well that may be the issue with this article, my post however was not about that.

[iverglas]

24. wrong track again, eh?

My goodness, surely you're not unaware that this tale had been beaten to death and exactly the same convenient tangent gone off on, exactly the same dance danced around exactly the same mulberry bush, more than once already.

Then why is it in LBN, and so what? How many reposted topics are there in GD, how many rehashed arguments and what not have occured in this whole board?

Now you are going to jump on me because you "this topic has been beaten to death" because there are two threads about it?

Missed the bit about exactly the same convenient tangent?

This story is NOT about "gun rights", or even guns, or even the liability of gun manufacturers in general or this manufacturer in particular.

It is about the ability of some wealthy people to avoid the legal consequences of their acts -- completely regardless of what YOU might think those consequences should be. Your opinion does not change what they ARE, or the fact that the means being used to avoid them are despicable and very possibly illegal.

Yeah, and it's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. I mean, I've spent as much time there as you spent in the room where the incident in question occurred when it occurred, so my opinion about this is obviously at least as good as your opinion about that.

I dont know what your experience with firearms are, but from your attitude I'd venture to guess that you dont know very much.

And I'll quite confidently say that your opinion about that matter is precisely as relevant as your opinion about the firearms in question in this case or the actions of any of the people involved in the event that was the subject of the case.

How relevant is that? None.


A court, properly constituted and applying the relevant law, found that the manufacturer was negligent.

Lots of crazy things can happen in court and our justice system is fucked up in lots of ways.

Yeah, and you can absolutely stake the farm on me accepting your agenda-driven surmises about what happened in that court, or anywhere else, as a better version of truth than any other report of what the jury heard, or any other version of the event that occurred.

Also, you can bet that I'm going to stand by when you attempt to drive that agenda into and over a discussion about something else altogether.

Uh, not.

If the sole reason that the jury voted against the defendent was because it was impossible to unchamber a round with the safety off then I think that was wrong.

Yeah, well -- me, I wouldn't even consider "thinking" anything at all based on what is obviously a total and complete absence of knowledge. And I just can't figure out why anybody else would.

Oh, wait. Maybe I can. Well, maybe I can figure out why somebody else would say s/he did.

But thats just my opinion, according to you courts are always right.

"According to me"? Oh really. And are you now going to cut and paste the passage of text in which I actually said that? Or even a passage of text from which any reasonably intelligent person could infer it, or reasonably honest person claim to have inferred it?

Or would it be easier just to retract it, given how difficult it can be to prove a false statement?

ACCORDING TO ME, a judgment was given against the corporation owned by this piece of slime, WHO HAS A HISTORY of evading his corporation's liability by operating it as an asset-less shell and carrying no liability insurance, and he is once again trying to evade that liability. Not to avoid it by appealing or attempting to settle; evading it by engaging in sham reorgs and sham conveyances.

The history of these pistols dates back to 1968. In response to the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, banning the importation of low-quality, low-cost "pocket pistols." The Jennings family and acquaintances stepped in to fill the void, starting several companies to produce and sell them domestically - Raven Arms, Davis Industries, Jennings Firearms, Inc., CalWestco Inc., Lorcin Engineering, Sundance Industries, Bryco Arms, Phoenix Arms, and B.L. Jennings, Inc.

Bruce Jennings and his second wife, Janice, started Jennings Firearms, Inc. in 1978 to manufacture and distribute a pistol called the J-22. After a domestic violence incident in 1985, Bruce and Janice Jennings divorced, Bruce Jennings became sole owner of Jennings Firearms, Inc., and his Federal Firearms License (FFL) was placed in jeopardy.

Jennings responded by restructuring. The corporate assets of Jennings Firearms, Inc. were sold to his plant manager, Gene Johnson, who continued to manufacture the J-22 under the name CalWestco Inc., using the same building, employees and equipment. Bruce Jennings continued to control the J-22, as in-house "consultant" to CalWestco Inc., as representative of its landlord, and as its sole customer - exclusive distribution of CalWestco Inc.'s production was taken over by a new corporation, Jennings Firearms, Inc. of Nevada, solely owned by Bruce Jennings.

Within a few years, Jennings restructured again, this time to avoid product liability. By 1990, Bruce Jennings was manufacturing the J-22, the Model 38, and several other pistols under the name Bryco Arms, a Nevada corporation nominally owned by Janice Jennings and his children's Nevada trusts, leasing a building nominally owned by a partnership of his children's California trusts, having purchased the assets of CalWestco Inc., and utilizing his original equipment and employees. Bruce Jennings controlled Bryco Arms as in-house "consultant," as trustee of its landlord, and as its sole customer - exclusive distribution continued through Bruce Jennings' solely owned Nevada corporation, renamed B.L. Jennings, Inc.

Corporate profits were immediately distributed, with Bruce Jennings "loaning" back working capital as a secured creditor, and the corporations carrying only minimal assets, no reserves, and as of April 1, 1994 (five days before Brandon's accident), no liability insurance. Bruce Jennings has bragged that if a judgment were ever obtained against him, he would simply file bankruptcy and reorganize again.

http://www.brandonsarms.org/bryco.php (And just let's not be challenging the facts based on the bias of the source unless there is some evidentiary basis for an allegation that the facts alleged are actually false or misleadingly framed. They're matters of public record.)

It wouldn't actually matter a pinch of poop if what he'd been manufacturing and selling had been baby bottles rather than crapoid firearms.

But isn't it just an amusing coincidence that what he was selling were firearms that "are among the most commonly recovered from crime, and feature prominently on the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Imitative (YCGII) list"?

The phrase "divine justice" almost comes to mind.

And as to that little guess about my knowledge based on my "attitude" ...

Having to have the safety off to unchamber a chambered round is not a defect. I've already shown how one of the most widely used firearms for civillians/military/police in the US functions in the same regard as the firearm in this article. Has our government been using defective handguns for most of the past century?

... well, let me just ask: do any of the firearms you refer to REALLY function "in the same regard as" (you mean "in the same way as"?) the Bryco model in question? Maybe you can have a read here:
http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialreport/0312/16/a01-7206.htm
and point me to/explain the ones that they're all missing in common -- i.e. confirm for me that all of the features that were absent from the crapoid Bryco are also absent from all of the firearms you are talking about. You're the expert; let us know.

[Jack_DeLeon]

25. Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.

... well, let me just ask: do any of the firearms you refer to REALLY function "in the same regard as" (you mean "in the same way as"?) the Bryco model in question? Maybe you can have a read here:
http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialreport/0312/16/a01-7...
and point me to/explain the ones that they're all missing in common -- i.e. confirm for me that all of the features that were absent from the crapoid Bryco are also absent from all of the firearms you are talking about. You're the expert; let us know.

From the article you linked
The pistol, a Bryco Model 38 semiautomatic, lacked critical safety features, making the deadly weapon even more dangerous to handle. There was no easy way to tell the gun was loaded and it could fire even after the magazine — the clip with ammunition — was removed.

The gun’s design increases the possibility of accidents because the safety — the main feature that prevents unintentional discharges — has to be turned off when the gun is being unloaded, experts say.

In most firearms there is no "easy" way to check if a weapon is loaded.

Easy being a relative term because I think the easy way to see if a weapon is loaded is to unload it and check the chamber to make sure there is no bullet in there. If there was ammo in the magazine or a round in the chamber then it was loaded. I dont think there is anything "hard" about that.

With that being said my particular pistol has a very small notch on the top of it over the chamber, this is supposidly so that if you see the yellow brass through it then you should know the gun is loaded. Myself I dont think I have ever used it to determine if the weapon is loaded, like I said before I just unload it to make sure.

Most models of this firearm, military surplus and whatnot do not have the notch, it was a commercial feature added by the manufacturer.

Additionally while I have never done it (something I'll test next time I go out shooting), I'm pretty sure it you can fire this weapon if it has a round in the chamber and no magazine. It may not make sense to you, but this is a "feature" not a "defect."

I dont know how often it is used, but the point of this is so that you can change magazines and still have a loaded and functional weapon. Or in the rare case where someone accidently pressed the magazine release and drops the magazine. Atleast they (they usually being police) will have a round in the chamber to use if trouble occurs while they are putting in a new magazine.

I'm already talked about the safety and unchambering a round.

[iverglas]

4. he shouldn't have to

The bankruptcy is a sham. Jennings, the owner, is the biggest secured creditor, as I recall the tale -- he has first dibs on his company's assets. Ah yes, The Corporation.

Maxfield's bid to purchase Bryco was $25,000 more than the $150,000 accepted by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Jerry Funk from Paul Jiminez, the company's former manager.

... Bryco founder Bruce Jennings and his Nevada-based distribution company were ordered to pay $24 million of a $51 million judgment in Maxfield's lawsuit. Maxfield has received $8.7 million - none of it from Jennings or Bryco - from others named in the suit.

Days after the verdict, Jennings moved across the country to Florida, where he purchased a $500,000 annuity and a $900,000 home and hangar in Daytona Beach. He filed both for personal bankruptcy and bankruptcy for Bryco in Florida, where state law allows debtors to keep their houses.

Jennings also reportedly owns a Lamborghini and other expensive cars and aircraft, which Maxfield's attorneys are pursuing.

If anybody believes that Jennings won't still be the owner, somebody probably has a bridge s/he can buy cheap.

(The Florida "homestead" protection is a grotesque fraud on innocent creditors, as I learned when the scam artist who owed my dad money under a judgment in the province of Ontario took all his money there and bought a spiffy big house. Mar-A-Lago is an exempt homestead in that state.)


http://www.brandonsarms.org/lawsuit.php

[Beaker]

11. the best thing about global warming-

is what it has in store for the state of Florida.

that state is a cesspool, and i think that bugs bunnt had the right idea when he cut it lose.

[oasis]

8. Way to go. Wayne La Pierre and his gang should take note 'cause we're

going to make America safer little by little.

[JayS]

12. And how do you propose to do this? Pass a law saying...

...underage babysitters are not allowed to play with guns? Tell people not to point a gun at what you don't intend to shoot? Tell parents not to leave firearms out where kids can get at them?

[BraveDave]

14. Who the hell gives their seven year old...

a semi automatic pistol.

I've heard of people teaching their kids to hunt, but never once have I run across this one.

[FeebMaster]

15. Huh? (nt)

[BraveDave]

16. Brandon was 7yo when the accident happened. (nt)

[FeebMaster]

17. He sure was. (nt)

[iverglas]

20. what the hell are you talking about?

Did you read a word of the FACTS of this case?

How could you have read a word of the FACTS OF THE CASE and ask a question like this?

Who the hell gives their seven year old...
a semi automatic pistol.

I dunno. Why don't you go find a thread about somebody who gave a child a semi-automatic pistol and ask somebody there?

I've heard of people teaching their kids to hunt,
but never once have I run across this one.

You're absolutely right. You haven't. Keep looking for it, eh? Hint: you won't find it in this thread.

[jdj]

26. Bravo.

Well done.