Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: WLJ on December 20, 2019, 10:22:00 AM
-
They're trying to use an agreement between S&W & the Clinton admin to implement "Smart" gun tech by 2003. I will admit my knowledge about that agreement is a bit fuzzy but on the surface from what little I know they may have a somewhat of a case if looked at a certain way. I said somewhat!
A statement of claim filed in a Canadian court alleges the gunmaker was negligent for not incorporating “smart gun” technology in the firearm used in the shooting.
The statement of claim filed at the Ontario Superior Court on Monday says Smith & Wesson had agreed to incorporate smart gun technology into its new weapons in 2003, and was aware that thousands of handguns are stolen each year.
The 40 series, introduced in 2005, did not include that technology. That includes the M&P40 semi-automatic pistol used by the shooter, Faisal Hussain. …
“[The] defendant knew the handgun was an ultra-hazardous product that posed a substantial likelihood of harm to the public,” says the statement of claim.
“In the circumstances, [the] defendant owed a duty to the Class to ensure that any handguns it made available to the Canadian market were designed and manufactured to implement technology that would prevent unauthorised users from causing the very type of harm and injury suffered by the Class members.”
Canadian Shooting Victims Sue Smith & Wesson for Failure to Install ‘Smart Gun’ Technology
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/canadian-shooting-victims-sue-smith-wesson-for-failure-to-install-smart-gun-technology/
-
It will be interesting to see how this proceeds in Canadian courts.
-
It will be interesting to see how this proceeds in Canadian courts.
Canadian lawsuit?
IMHO (and I'm not a lawyer or judge) only S&W assets in Canada should be at risk.
-
Canadian lawsuit?
IMHO (and I'm not a lawyer or judge) only S&W assets in Canada should be at risk.
That is a question. I have no idea if S&W even does any official business in Canada. Most US manufacturers sell through distributors so I don't if S&W is even the actual exporter. Of course, they might do business selling non-gun products.
Is S&W still obligated by that agreement over 20 years later with different owners and management? It all depends on Canadian courts which I have no idea about.
-
I suspect the agreement was full of weasel words that committed S&W to incorporating smart gun technology by 2003 if it became technically and economically feasible to do so -- which it didn't. The technology still hasn't been proven to be reliable. I don't think the case will go anywhere, but it should be interesting to watch.
-
From the article:
The agreement committed Smith & Wesson to a variety of steps the Clintonistas claimed would reduce “gun violence,” including the following:
Two percent of annual firearms revenues will be dedicated to the development of authorized user technology that can limit a gun’s use to its proper owner. Authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models within 36 months.
That’s the 2003 date referenced in the Canadian complaint.
The Clinton administration agreement became, in effect, moot with the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2006. That law protects gun makers from liability when their lawfully-sold products are used to commit crimes.
The PLCAA, however, doesn’t apply north of the border.
Being an old geezer, I remember the feeling of betrayal when S&W signed that agreement. But even if they had invested the zillions of dollars to make a functional smart gun, wouldn't the dealer, and thus the thief who stole it, become the "authorized user"? So how would that have changed anything?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P#Users
This article shows 5 Canadian law enforcement agencies that use the M&P.
-
Wasn't that when S&W was owned by a British company?
If that's the case, then that one of the parties to the "contract" was incompetent to enter contracts regarding firearms.
Maybe even both of them. >:D >:D
:rofl:
I noted the "somewhat" in the OP, but there's no limit to how lawyers can twist stuff around, Canadian or American.
Terry
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P#Users
This article shows 5 Canadian law enforcement agencies that use the M&P.
But who sells them in Canada?
-
I apologize for not acknowledging that you asked that question in your previous post. I don't know. My new boss used to work for S&W, I can ask him, but I won't see him again until January.
-
If you can get an answer please do. Honestly, I don't know if S&W sells directly to police departments here.
-
Which is what happens when you call the Feds.---Han Solo.
-
I still don't trust S&W after the 2000 Clinton agreement which sold us out. :mad:
-
I finally talked to my boss. He was a live fire tester for S&W for years. He's like 99% sure they sell directly to Canadian LE, no middleman.