Thursday, July 28, 2011


Wally sends in this story certain to raise your blood pressure.


(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

Mass. gun-maker to pay $600K in gun-death lawsuit

BOSTON — A Massachusetts gun-maker has agreed to pay nearly $600,000 to the families of one man who was killed and another man who was wounded in a shooting involving a gun allegedly stolen from the company, a national gun-control group announced Tuesday.

Danny Guzman, 26, was slain outside a Worcester nightclub in 1999. Armando Maisonet was wounded in the same shooting.

Kahr apparently employed a dirtbag with a coke habit - you know, the kind of person that San Francisco is trying to make a "protected" class of employee - who stole a gun and sold it for drugs. He broke multiple state and federal laws when he took possession of the firearm, as well as numerous laws against possession of illicit substances. The gun changed hands several times and ultimately wound up used in a shooting where someone was killed.

Since dirtbag drug addicts don't have deep pockets - but Kahr does - they wound up on the wrong end of a wrongful death suit.

It's hard to tell who I'm more angry at: Kahr for settling, or a judge for allowing the trial to go forward. Obviously Kahr thought that they stood at least a fair chance of losing the lawsuit in court if they offered a settlement; one wonders what backroom deals were cut, etc. This hands the antis a golden opportunity - and the Brady Campaign wastes no time reveling in the blood of the innocents.

Again, substitute "car" for Kahr. Imagine, if you will, that someone from a dealership stole a car off the lot and traded it for drugs. The car changes hands numerous times and then is used to run someone over. Would Ford be on the hook? You can't help but think the lawsuit would be laughed out of the courtroom. But when it's ZOMG EVIL GUNZZZ!!!! all perspective goes right out the window. And Kahr just rolled over and played dead. Thanks.

Well, guess that settles it - no PM9 for me.

That is all.


Weer'd Beard said...

Well the Mass Compliant PM9s aren't worth your money you already have a pocket 9...

They also have a lot of crazy connections with the Moonies and some other strange histories.

That being said they make several guns that simply have no competition out there, and they have one of the nicest striker-fired triggers out there....

Clint said...

"Obviously Kahr thought that they stood at least a fair chance of losing the lawsuit in court if they offered a settlement; "


When I once QA work for a company that almost got into the motorcycle helmet biz.

Helmets can only only protect you so much.

If someone sued because a loved one killed himself on his bike, the company can show how the helmet worked as designed and met federal standards.

It still costs one million dollars.

Yep. Paging Dr. Evil: One, million, dollars...

...To prove your innocence in a tort case.

Want to guess what the estimate was for Kahr to fight this case in court?
I have afeeliong that teh estimate

ZerCool said...


I wish I didn't like carrying my PM9 so much.

Jim said...

Dam. Thanks for the morning blood pressure spike. I needed to wake up anyway...

They will never get a single dime of my money for this.

Borepatch said...

A lawyer buddy of mine is pretty convinced that not doing a background check on people in your employ who have access to your guns is actionable, when/if something goes wrong.

I haven't seen anything in the Press (and likely wouldn't trust it if I did) about whether Kahr did an employment background check on this guy. If not, they're idiots.

Wally said...

Interesting to note that one of the articles says the gun was stolen before it was serial numbered - but polymer kahrs (as pictured) have embossed metal tags cast into the frame. The numbers are stamped on the tag prior to placing in the frame. They are very clearly not stamped after molding.

I remember years back when bushmaster paid out as part of the settlement for Malvo/Mohammed. Equally as obsurd but apparently it was cheaper to pay than to fight it.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"it was cheaper to pay than to fight it."

And there we see the biggest problem with our civil (and often criminal) legal system. Too often it doesn't matter if you did anything wrong or not, it's simply better for you to settle or take a plea because you can't afford to fight.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Check "Snowflakes in Hell". From what was written there, it looks like Kahr tried everything in the Law to NOT have this go to court, but were shot down in Flames before the Trial. So if they LOST the Trial, and Appealed, they probably would have been Screwed even Worse, and that would have set Precedent for the Antis to attack another company, using Kahr's money.

Sometimes the Bad Guys win a Battle. Don't mean we surrender the War.

Geodkyt said...

Let your blood pressure go back down. . . all is not as it seems in the press.

In fact, the reason Kahr settled was to moot a federal constitutional challenge to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act being mounted at the time by the Brady Bunch (as co-counsel in this lawsuit, they had standing right up until the plaintiffs accepted the settlement).

This case has dragged on for nine years (eight of which, the Bradies have been funding and driving it), and Kahr figured that a $600K settlement was cheaper than continuing the fight (both the lawsuit AND the constitutional challenge), and DEFINATELY worth not risking having some leftist judge throw out the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The only criminal conviction on his record was driving on a suspended license. Does driving while suspended even get reported to an empoyer running a criminal background check in Mass?

The drug allegations were made by his wife during their 1996 divorce; there is no evidence in the plaintiff brief (and the Brady bunch spent EIGHT YEARS on this case; it seems likely they turned over ANY rocks that Kahr could have likely found when they hired him and the thefts occured in 1999) that he was ever arrested or charged with a drug-related offense.

His ex-wife alleged (AFTER he was hired) that he was under reporting his extra income (both the existance of his 2nd job at Kahr, as well as his overtime from his 1st job). No evidence is presented of ANY official action beyond her filing the support complaint. Allegations not found to be worth a charge, or even an arrest, made during a biter divorce case in Family Court, are not criminal records.

He had one charge dismissed (giving a cop a false name).

He had several other charges (domestic A&B, A&B, DUI -- all seperate incidents and cases, spread over several years) where he pled no contest, and while the judge has teh atuthority to enter a "guilt" finding in such cases, the judge instead gave him a "continuance without finding" (CWOF), which is what Massachusetts law calls it when you get "do X for Y time, and this all goes away" (except the CWOF can be used for penalty enhancement considerations in future convictions of the same type of offence). He went to his anger management and alcohol abuse counceling and entered teh Mass 24D DUI program, and apparantly successfully completed the requirements (since in NONE of these cases did the judge revoke his probation and order a finding of "guilty" -- which he could do if the guy failed to comply).

Under Mass law, a CWOF is NOT a conviction, does NOT make you a "prohibited person" (not for joining the cops, the military, or possessing a gun), and does NOT require you to admit it if asked "Have you been convicted?"

Unless a Massachusetts criminal background check by an employer would normally reveal driving on a suspended license, it seems as though (according to Mass state websites and Mass criminal lawyer websites) the response Kahr would have received would be, "No adult criminal records found."

Michael in CT said...

I'm going to side with Kahr on this. I'm not sure why they should risk a multi-million judgement against them, of which there probably would have been a good chance if it had ended up in front of a jury, when they could settle out of court for $600,000. It is possible that a multi million dollar judgement against them would have forced them out of business, Kahr is not a big company.

Daniel in Brookline said...

The pocket 9s might not be worth it, but I'm still hoping against hope that Kahr will bring back the Israeli Jerichos -- and make them Mass-compliant.

If they did, I'd have a hard time boycotting them...

Clint said...

Also, in tort cases (lawsuits) only 6 members of the jury need to agree for you to pay up.

In criminal cases all 12 jurors need to agree to find you guilty.

Anonymous said...

I thought that you might like to know that the dirtbag who stole the gun in the first place never served time for it. 10 year felony and he never served any time. Surprise, my fellow MA subject, MA gun laws again not enforced against actual criminals. And sorry, Geodkyt, spending time and getting yourself classified after sentencing into Bridgewater (which is reserved for crazy or druggy) means that you actually ARE considered, at the very least, a potential threat to someone, including yourself. Crazy or drugs ARE both disqualifiers for ANYTHING gun related in this state. Don't comment on on case specifics unless you've actually read the idiots' rap sheet.

seeker_two said...

....and just where in Massachusetts could Kahr Arms get a fair trial?.....

I'd like to see ALL the Mass-based gun companies up and leave for free-er states....we have plenty of room here in Texas for S&W and Kahr both.... :)

Geodkyt said...


I was commenting from the plaintiff's brief, where they give all the reasons why Kahr should never have hired him.

I guess the eight year dirt digging expedition by the Brady lawyers just "forgot" to mention something thatr would have ACTUALLY have made the guy a prohibited person, but they managed to find a bunch of irrelevant allegations and charges that were pled down, tossed out, or otherwise provide ZERO legal weight to the claim that Kahr should have known (in March 1999) the guy was a scumbag.

Got a link to his rap sheet?

Geodkyt said...

Yup, cannot find ANY mention of Cronin's record OTHER than what I already related, in ANY search engine, including the various court filings in the case (including the Commonwealth of Mass. amicus brief).