Federal Judge Dismisses Class Action Lawsuit Against SlideFire

Diane Feinstein and Bump Fire Stock Ban

courtesy Washington Examiner and AP

US District Court Judge Gloria M. Navarro has dismissed a class action lawsuit brought against SlideFire Solutions as a result of the Mandalay Bay shooting. Her decision turned on whether a bump fire stock qualifies as a “component part” of a firearm under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and is therefore protected from liability due to criminal misuse of an otherwise legal product.

A Federal Judge for the District of Nevada issued an order on September 17th dismissing a class action lawsuit against Slide Fire Solutions, makers of the notorious bump-fire stock. Slide Fire had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (which governs personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (which covers failures to state a claim for which relief can be granted). …

PLCAA was enacted by Congress upon finding that manufacturers and sellers of firearms “are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products . . . that function as designed and intended.” Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 7901(a)(5)). Simply put, the statute requires Courts to immediately dismiss “qualified civil liability actions“. The term encompasses a few different things, but for the purposes of this discussion will mean civil actions “brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product . . . for damages . . . or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party…” Just as a quick aside, there are exemptions to this general rule, which you can find in the definition here.

Based on the definition above, the Court was left to wrestle with whether a bump-fire stock was a “qualified product“. In order to qualify, the bump-fire stock needed to be found to be a firearm or a component part. Of course, Congress did not define the term “component part” which meant that the Court had to give it meaning. Each party gave differing interpretations, Slide Fire arguing that it was a component part based on ATF’s guidebook and ATF’s determination letter, while the Plaintiff’s argued that they were accessories because “they are added after a consumer purchases a fully functional rifle, require post-purchase installation, and are advertised as a way to “enhance” or “overhaul” a rifle in Slide Fire’s promotional catalog”.

The Court ultimately sided with Slide Fire on its interpretation that a bump-fire stock was a “component part”. The Court found, and the parties did not dispute, that a stock was a component part of a rifle.

Read the rest of Adam Kraut’s post on the decision here.

comments

  1. avatar L says:

    I thought SlideFire wasn’t producing bump stocks anymore?

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      They aren’t, but RW Arms still sells the left over stock

      https://www.rwarms.com/?utm_source=slidefire

    2. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      What made them stop producing these stocks?

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Their bank refused to provide them with financial services. Just as other gun businesses have been denied service.

        1. avatar kanuuker says:

          This is why gun associated businesses need to start adopting cryptocurrencies like Dash. No one can stop them from receiving a payment as they’re decentralized networks.

  2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Why does this principle only apply to firearms and component parts?

    If an arsonist uses an Acme brand cordless drill to intentionally set a building on fire, does that mean the building owner and human victims can sue Acme Company? I certainly hope not.

    1. avatar clst says:

      Acme currently restricts sale of all their products to Coyotes only.

      1. avatar Francis says:

        Road Runner filed a lawsuit against ACME claiming discrimination. Universal background checks and transfer laws prevent Road Runner from obtaining weapons for self defense against Wile E Coyote.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          Road Runner had consensual sex with a 16 year old girl in Texas. He thought she was 19 and she said as much in her sugardaddy.com bio. Apparently, in Texas none of that matters. Road Runner plead out to felony “unlawful sex with a minor” and got a suspended sentence with credit for time served. Now Road Runner is a sex registrant and convicted felon. It is unlawful for him to purchase or posess ACME products. Road Runner dropping the race card is a smoke screen meant to pander to RRLM.

        2. avatar RMS1911 says:

          Don’t worry Francis the restraining order works through magic.

    2. avatar Pyratemime says:

      The principle does apply to things beyond firearms. The reason for the law was because the principle was not being applied to firearms.

      The PLCCA was passed to prevent gun manufactures from having to defend a civil case for every criminal use of their product as was the intent of Brady and Co and facilitated by judges who were ignoring that principle.

  3. avatar Souredbuttcrack says:

    So Home Depot is Totally liable when someone rents their truck and runs people over with it then? Or U-Haul when it explodes taking half a building down?

    1. avatar silverwarloc says:

      Home Depot would be secondary since Home Depot did not build the cars. They bought the cars for their business. Hence, it would be the car manufacturer’s fault should an incident, as you described, occur. In addition to that, it can be argued, in court of course, that the different parts manufacturers are also liable. Goodyear, Michellin, and Firestone for tires, or any tire manufactures. Brake assembly parts. The whole auto industry is liable.

      This is the kind of thinking these people will try to apply to force us to comply to their will. They will use the courts as their weapon of choice. And, they have backers, as you are all aware, that are willing to fund them.

  4. avatar Papo says:

    Libtards don’t understand jack about guns, they just want to ban, ban, and ban some more. Bump stock don’t make a rifle more accurate or deadly. The crazy teen made a carnage at Virginia Tech using semi auto handguns.

    1. avatar Zhang says:

      And those semi-auto handguns were a Walther P22, chambered in .22 LR with ten-round magazines, and a 9mm Glock 19, using neutered ten-round magazines.

      Magazine capacity limitations do nothing to stop killers. All they do is handicap defenders, who by nature can only respond reactively to the threat.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      You can argue all you want about the legalities of Slide Fires and the NFA. But stating that a Slide Fire stock can not make a rifle “more deadly” is just wrong.

      Virginia Tech was not accomplished at 500 yards in under 10 minutes. And he could have easily doubled or tripled the casualty rates if he just kept firing into the crowd instead of taking shots at the fuel tanks. Worse yet, if he has fired within 300 yards things would have been a whole lot worse. At 500 yards a 5.56 round hits like a 380 Markov, that is why he hit 500 people but only manages to kill under 60.

      A properly set up slide fire can reliably dump a 100 round magazine inside of 8 seconds and be held on a man sized target at 250 yards. The biggest weakness is the heat issue, but if you have a dozen rifles that is not much of a problem.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Kudos for pointing out that a 5.56 x 45 mm NATO bullet has handgun velocity/energy at 500 yards — and how that only resulted in about a 11% fatality rate just like handguns!

        Your claim that someone can fire 100 rounds in 8 seconds — a cycle rate of 12 rounds per second — with a bumpfire stock is incorrect. With some practice an average person will probably max out around 8 rounds per second or so with a bumpfire stock, which is 50% lower than your number. That said, that means someone could still empty a 100 round magazine in 12 seconds which is still pretty darned fast.

        And, having said all that, practicing with a nice trigger someone could fire at least four rounds per second without a bumpfire stock. That means someone could empty a 100 round magazine in 25 seconds which could still be quite lethal in a large crowd at close range. Then again so is a pickup truck with a snowplow blade in the same scenario.

        Finally, no one is going to empty a 100 round magazine in 12 seconds and place all those bullets in a man-sized target at 250 yards. I doubt anyone could shoot at one round per second and keep all 100 bullets on target at 250 yards.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          Two problems, I have seen videos from fairly major you tube channels demonstrating those capabilities. You can still find them if you look. Hell I posted links to them a while back.

      2. avatar ACP_armed says:

        I know you probably don’t care to see me posting a reply to you, but if you would, entertain my idea.

        Using your argument that bump stocks are machineguns because a bump stock can be easily converted/retrofitted back to a bump stock design that uses a spring which the ATF said is a machinegun.

        This my addition to that idea. — If bump stocks are machineguns because they can be easily converted/retrofitted with a spring, the next logical step is to say the AR-15 is a machinegun because it can be easily converted/retrofitted with a bump stock. This would also apply to any semiautomatic long gun that can be fitted with a bump stock not just the AR-15.

        Your thoughts?

        1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          A bump stock doesn’t make an AR15 into a machine gun. Just as a $ 0.05 rubber ban does not make that AR into an MG either. A bump stock ban is just a step towards banning all semi automatic rifles and eventually pistols as well.

          The Mexicans and Europeans are limited to 5 shot revolvers and 12 gage shotguns. Is that what you are willing to settle for?

        2. avatar Binder says:

          Dude, I’m done arguing about the legal BS about them. Just calling people out who say that they are not as effective as “machine gun”. The fact is that they can fill the role of a SAW from a fixed position when set up properly. This is NOT my opinion, but the opinion of military firearms experts that have set them up. Look around and do some research. I know most of the info about them has been pulled, but you can still find it if you look.

          Here is interesting quote from TAG back in 2014 (I will give them credit for NOT pulling their early SlideFire reporting)
          “If you want a machine gun you should be able to have a machine gun. ….. Thanks to Slide Fire and their very understanding friends at the ATF, you can (kinda ish). So what’s stopping you?”

        3. avatar ACP_armed says:

          Chris,
          My stance is 100% against a bump stock ban. Really, the things don’t meet the definition of machineguns in the NFA and the fact they were reviewed by the ATF something like four times said to not be machineguns.

          Binder,
          I’ll give you credit for picking a much better argument. But, would you please give a response directly about what I posted using the easily converted/retrofitted argument that you, your self, used.

  5. avatar Zhang says:

    This judge, Gloria M. Navarro, may very well have been one of Obama’s biggest appointment blunders for himself and his side. She is the same woman who dismissed the case against Cliven Bundy, with prejudice, and allowed him to walk out a free man.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      It’s nice to see that some of the other side’s court picks turn out to be turds for them.

      I was close to being resigned to the fact that only happened to our side’s judicial choices…

  6. avatar ollie says:

    When the dems take over on January 1st, Step One is Australian Style Gun Control for the US.
    Step Two is repeal of PLACC.
    Step Three is impeachment of Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill claims and other justices too.

    Remember to vote and make your friends and kinfolks vote.

  7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Time to file for recovery of costs. And everyone involved in bringing the suit is forevermore to be known as lawfare-artist . Every time.

    Brought a spurious lawsuit in the face of obvious federal law, not counting the constitution. Just saw an opportunity to impede lawful behavior without the burden of passing a law. So “lawfare-artist” is really the least of the divisive monikers they’re earned.

  8. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    That “range toy” is an effective weapon. A criminal used one causing great damage. But don’t worry. Real machine guns are still available. For several thousand dollars. Verses a $175 range toy.

    1. avatar D trump says:

      You’re a fucking idiot.

  9. avatar Trooper Sam says:

    Judge Navarro again. The same one from the Bundy trial.

    Seems some people misread her a bit.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email