Federal Court Dismisses Case Against Firearms Manufacturers

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division has dismissed a case against several AR-15 firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Remington Arms Company, Sig Sauer, Sturm, Ruger & Company, Colt’s Manufacturing and Armalite.

The dismissal with prejudice of the Primus Group v. Smith & Wesson, et. al. case was delivered Oct. 9.

The court found the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case against the defendants. This decision asserts that those who purposefully and criminally misuse firearms are the ones who are responsible for those crimes. It further affirms that activist lawsuits to prompt judicial action are not the proper avenue to establish policy.

As the National Shooting Sports Foundation wrote . . .

“This decision by the federal judge to dismiss with prejudice this frivolous case is pleasing, if not unexpected,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “These are lawful and federally-regulated AR-15 modern sporting rifle manufacturers that make semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes. The judge was absolutely correct to assert that the proper venue to establish public firearms policy is through the legislature and not the courts.”

Primus Group, LLC, is an entertainment venue in Columbus, Ohio. The limited liability company filed suit after the tragic murders in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, claiming the firearms companies engaged in racketeering, intentional misrepresentation claims, and “a clear and present danger” of all American lives due to “assault weapons.”

The modern sporting rifles manufactured and sold by the companies named as defendants are semiautomatic rifles, meaning one round is fired for each trigger pull.

“This decision by the federal judge to dismiss with prejudice this frivolous case is pleasing, if not unexpected,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “These are lawful and federally-regulated AR-15 modern sporting rifle manufacturers that make semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes. The judge was absolutely correct to assert that the proper venue to establish public firearms policy is through the legislature and not the courts.”

The Case Number was 2:19-cv-03450; Judge Edmund A. Sargus decided the case.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Tired of winning yet?

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      Nope. It’s going to take a lot more than that to get the Democrats to stop cynically using guns as red meatless patties to rile up their less critical-thinking-able base.

      I sympathize with the anger and fear than many of those people are feeling. I believe it is genuine, but it is also misguided, and the “solutions” they seek are simply wrong. The Democrats know this, and they don’t give a shit.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “… the “solutions” they seek are simply wrong. The Democrats know this, and they don’t give a shit.”

        You’re not seeing the forest through all the trees. This is a systematic, deliberate legal tactic in play here. How many years were lawsuits filed and dismissed when tobacco companies were being blamed for lung cancer deaths?

        This is the same playbook. *Everything* in their strategy has a basis in how tobacco companies were eventually successfully attacked. The flaw in their strategy is that lawful gun use has no extraordinary danger in use, unlike cigarette smokers. It’s misuse that harms people…

        1. avatar Inquirer67 says:

          Indeed! In fact, it is the DELIBERATE and WILLFUL misuse of firearms—a decision made by the individual involved, not the manufacturer, that is at the root of any harm.

      2. avatar Baldwin says:

        I cannot, correction, will not sympathize with anyone supporting any restriction on our RKBA! The genuineness of their feelings in no way empowers them to trample on rights.

        1. avatar guest says:

          Then you’ll never convert them. Great attitude. Just like theirs. Can’t risk being the bigger man, now can we.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          95% of these people are *never* going to be converted, Guest.

          “Being the bigger man” is pointless feel-good-ism. They don’t respond to sympathy or empathy; they just want you and your scary rights to go away, and they’ll use you as a doormat if you let them.

        3. avatar David says:

          Those anti-gun proponents fail to see that the 2nd is not “our” amendment, but an amendment which belongs to everyone. The destroy the 2nd denies anyone presently averse to firearms the right to change their mind and take up arms. Many a citizen who was once against firearms has, due to life experiences, changed their minds and become a gun carrying, licensed citizen.

          One of the very highest of those people is Sen Diane Feinstein who, following the discovery of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk having been assassinated, sought and received firearms training, was issued a carry permit, and purchased a firearm. I believe her CCW is still active and that she carries. In any case, she did not sit back and depend upon the police to protect her as she expects the rest of us to do. Nothing say hypocrite like a Demwitrat politician. The very people who honor killers (Ted Kennedy), anarchists (ANTIFA), law breakers (the Clintons), etc.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Not even close. 🙂

    3. avatar Ruth N. Jeter says:

      When I was a senior in High school a girl in my class said her family was living in Hawaii when Pearl Harber was bombed and her Dad walked the fence with a gun. If we should get attacked by Iran, Syria, Russia, etc. how are we American citizens going to defend ourselves if are guns are taken away. I also heard that when one country was asked why they didn’t attack the U.S. their answer was too many guns.

  2. avatar Dude says:

    I wonder if the threat of these types of lawsuits factored in Colt’s decision to leave the civilian rifle market.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      That’s a part of their strategy – Make gun companies hesitant to enter the market in the first place. Why the “protection in lawful commerce” act is important…

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Colt’s decision was purely business, but they took the opportunity to do some corporate virtue signaling.

      Colt found out people were not going to pay a premium for a horse logo on their lower receiver and exited the “civilian” market because they couldn’t match the price points of their competitors.

      1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

        That’s the idiocy of Colt. Virtue signalling for who? The liberals that will never buy their guns and will always hate them for the mere fact that they manufacture guns…..ANY guns at all. The certainly didn’t gain any virtue with their paying customers.

        I very much understand the business aspect of it, their rifles were overpriced for what they were and the market has long realized that. But the timing was just stupid. “Yeah, let’s make this big announcement that we will no longer sell ARs to civilians right after a bunch of mass shootings and other companies taking an anti-gun stance. That can’t possibly get any negative reaction from our customers.”

        Smart thing would have been to gradually and QUIETLY ramp down production, and if distributors start asking questions just say “Sorry, gov’t contracts, too busy to talk, let you know when we get more. Don’t call us, we’ll call you. Kthxbye.”

        Everyone would think it’s just Colt being Colt and go buy a BCM or PSA or whatever and forget about it.

    3. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      No. Colt wasn’t worried about their rifles being used in a mass shooting , since nobody buys them anymore.

  3. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Please tell me the plaintiffs have been ordered to pay the court fees like with the last time they tried this.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      This.
      Without this penalty attached even if they lose every worthless case they will still win by attrition because they’re funded by the government and the bourgeois activist billionaire set while the defenders are always paying out of their own pockets.

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        I have a dream that Bloomberg is one day bankrupted by his continual failed efforts to disarm working class folks, has to fire his security staff and live in a questionable neighborhood and… buys a gun to protect himself.

        1. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Or at least is secluded alone in an underground bunker… sitting at a desk, with a Walther in the drawer.

        2. avatar Rob says:

          I believe his security is provide by NYC police dept, all detectives.

      2. avatar Wood says:

        And make sure the attorneys who brought the frivolous suit share in the financial penalty.

    2. avatar Icabod says:

      Recall a couple that sued an ammunition manufacturer after their daughter died in the Aurora shooting. They were supported by the Brady Campaign. They lost and the court ordered them to pay the manufacturer’s court costs. The sum was over $200,000.
      The couple is now playing the martyr role and the Brady Campaign is playing it up. The right thing is for the Brady Campaign (which had 25,000,000 in donation in 2014 and 2015) to pay the costs. Instead, they are seeking publicity for the couple and not their failed lawsuit.

      https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/Family-to-Pay-Price-for-Trying-to-Sue-Ammo-Dealers-320224111.html
      https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/aurora-lawsuit-brady-campaign/

  4. avatar John Boch says:

    Pass me a tissue. I’m crying over here at this news.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Pass me a tissue. I’m crying over here at this news.”

      I have some more news to warm the cockles of your cold, black heart, John. 😉

      Check this out –

      “Brutal wipeout for Democrats in Louisiana, and the press trying to keep it quiet”

      “The last of the Louisiana state election numbers are in, and it’s not pretty for the Democrats.

      Not only does its moderate Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards, face a runoff, as noted here, but the state Senate has taken a supermajority. And a whole bunch of key state offices went squarely to Republicans. Funny how the press isn’t covering this much.”

      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/brutal_wipeout_for_democrats_as_final_louisiana_numbers_roll_in.html

      *sniff-sniff* 😉

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Geoff…

        Happy dance!!!
        Thank you for posting that link!

  5. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    “This decision asserts that those who purposefully and criminally misuse firearms are the ones who are responsible for those crimes.”

    Good, high time. I really wish a court would point out that alcohol manufacturers aren’t responsible for drunk driving deaths, and as to how that logic applies to these lawsuits against gun companies….

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      That is the clear and present danger of the PLCAA being revoked. Once the first case is settled it will be the legal precedent for any negligent misuse of any company’s products. The will affect automakers, brewers, distillers, petroleum refiners and distributors, tool makers, and many more.

    2. avatar RUBY ROBERTS says:

      ALL OF THESE ANSWER,S ARE SO TRUE

  6. avatar Scott C. says:

    Good, all the firearm manufacturers should counter sue for wasted time money, resources and just plain old BS.

  7. “Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. is the chief judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. He joined the court in 1996 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton. Sargus became the chief judg…..”

    Heh.

    Appointed by Bubba.

  8. avatar Hannibal says:

    Whatever attorneys brought this action should be jointly responsible for any fees awarded to the other side due to the complete lack of merit in the case.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Should be disbarred. Until scumbag lawyers who push nuisance suits they know to be frivolous face serious repercussions get some real consequences, this will keep happening.

      1. avatar Wood says:

        To both of you, AGREED.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    “Dismissed with prejudice”…I like that!

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      It has a nice ring to it but the meaning is the best part. The case was dismissed on adjudicated merits and cannot be brought up again by the plaintiffs.

      The judgement also carries with it the the strong implication that the suit was “vexatious” or “brought in bad faith”.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        It doesn’t imply the suit was brought in bad faith (although it was). Most lawsuits are adjudicated ‘with prejudice’ unless there is a technical issue causing a dismissal, such as the failure to serve one of the defendants, in which case the plaintiffs can refile the civil action once they are able to find the party.

        The courts don’t want someone to be able to bring the same suit they just ruled on up again. It also in no way forecloses appeals or other legal actions open to someone when they have been ruled against.

        It’s one of those legal terms that sounds more dramatic than it is.

        1. avatar George Washington says:

          All legal terms sound more dramatic than they really are….
          I view it as built-in “code” language used in legal circles to make themselves appear to be smarter than the other kids….
          You know what happens to those legal terms once the SHTF? THEY WITHER AND DIE…

        2. avatar Nickel Plated says:

          I would have preferred Dismissed with get this bulls*** the f*** out of my courtroom.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Obviously it can be appealed to a higher court. But it cannot be refiled just to be obnoxious, which it is and which the judge pretty well spends six pages explaining.

          In this case, that is the one I was addressing, it is the judge saying that pretty well spends the whole document laying out that the case is “vexatious” because the the plaintiffs lack standing, inability to articulate actual damages and use hypothetical in lieu of actual injuries.

          So yeah, in this case the judge spends a few pages telling us all about how this is basically a vexatious action, which would be one in bad faith because when it comes to filing a lawsuit one can’t be vexatious in good faith. That’s basically what 5 of that 6.25 pages is, an explanation of the vexatious action that leads the judge to dismiss the case.

          If you read the document you can practically hear the *eyerolls* as the judge goes through the arguments. (Yes, it’s that bad, you can hear the eyerolls, whatever noise that might make).

  10. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Thankfully some court can read and comprehend the English language rather than their eyes blinded by the Lefts Bravo Sierra .

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The judge was absolutely correct to assert that the proper venue to establish public firearms policy is through the legislature and not the courts. — National Shooting Sports Foundation

    WRONG!

    There is NO VENUE where it is proper for anyone or any entity to establish self-defense policy. Either we have a right to self-defense or we do not. If we have a right to self-defense, then there can be no righteous policy which limits it.

  12. avatar UpInArms says:

    ” There is NO VENUE where it is proper for anyone or any entity to establish self-defense policy. ”

    Does that include Castle Doctrines and Stand Your Ground laws?

  13. avatar Rr77 says:

    Doesn’t this mean the AR-15 is not a firearm?

    1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

      Wrong story?
      The one you’re looking for might be a couple pages back. LOL

  14. avatar Sam Hill says:

    Faster horses, younger women, more money, bigger guns!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The usual result of horses, woman and guns is less money.

  15. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy." possum says:

    Do what? Assualt type wespons. Good thing I aint president, Id want my citizens armed with “Assault Weapons” , I’d see the people of the U.S. as my reserve army, wed have real P T in schools, marksmanship courses for everyone, at sge 18 male and female would take 8 weeks basic training. Then I’d picket fence our borders with ICBM missles and tell the rest of the world “Fck off”.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I’m writing in Possum for President come 2020.

  16. avatar Wood says:

    “One of the very highest of those people is Sen Diane Feinstein who…”

    I would never use “highest” in this manner. Any number of other adjectives would better serve your meaning, but to stay charitable I might go with “influential”. One has to be charitable with adjectives for politicians, else the quality of our discussion quickly degrades. 🤣

    1. avatar Wood says:

      Well that comment was a reply to “David”, but I don’t see his post…

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