Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

Felon's Accidental-Shooting Lawsuit
Thrown Out Of Court

(GunReports.com) -- The Massachusetts Appellate Court has upheld a trial court's decision to dismiss a case involving an ex-con who stole a homeowner's firearm and accidentally shot and killed himself with it. The administrator of the ex-con's estate attempted to sue both the homeowner and Glock. The case was dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

From the decision:

This matter arises out of Charles Milot's accidental death from a gunshot wound. Thomas Hughes owned the weapon involved, and Glock, Inc. (Glock), was the manufacturer of the weapon. Elizabeth Ryan (the plaintiff), the administratrix of the Milot estate, filed a complaint in Superior Court asserting claims of negligence and wrongful death against Hughes. The plaintiff also asserted claims of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, wrongful death, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices against Glock. …

On February 25, 2002, Hughes picked up Milot around 7:00 A.M. and brought Milot to his house. Once they were at Hughes's house, Hughes showed Milot the front doorbell that he wanted Milot to repair. Hughes then left his house to run some errands, returning to check on Milot's progress about two hours later. When Hughes returned home, he found Milot's body covered with blood in the front doorway of his home. The police and an ambulance were called and upon their arrival, Milot was pronounced dead. An autopsy was performed, and it was determined that Milot had suffered a gunshot wound to his left thigh which severed the femoral artery and caused Milot to bleed to death.

Tweet

Read the court documents here.

Reader Comments

My Goodness, the new law must be good to provide a win for reason and justice in Massachusetts.

I hope that the Plaintiff had to pay the defendants' costs.

A good start to the year.

Comment by: Derek | January 12, 2012

I guess that Milot didn't send for and read the instruction booklet before operating the gun.

Comment by: Mister E | January 12, 2012

Mr. E, Now that's funny. I don't care who you are!!!!

Comment by: ajwrangler | January 12, 2012

Does Eric Holder know about this? Law abiding citizen held not liable for doing nothing wrong.It is really a good thing that the guy who shot himself was not an illegal immigrant or the homeowner would have found himself in federal court facing multiple felony charges.

Comment by: DEAN O | January 12, 2012

I can't believe this even made it into the court to begin with. We so badly need tort reform in this country. The plaintiff, the lawyers, the clerks, HECK, even the judges who allowed this to come into the court to be argued.... well, they should all be taken out behind the wood shed and whipped for wasting our taxes on this crap.

Comment by: SgtGuido | January 12, 2012

I can't believe this happened in Mexichewshits. Well, I can believe it happened, what I can't believe is the court. What an unusual positive development. Now, we have of course to wait to see what the appeals court says... and if they overturn it or not.

That aside, he shot himself in the femoral artery? Thought he'd hide the hot gun in his pants apparently. Not sure if this result is better or if I wish he'd shot off his tickle-tackle instead.

Comment by: david b | January 12, 2012

I agree with Guido - this should have never made it to court. Obviously, we need to be able to prevent "the little guy" from being steamrollered by corporate Goliaths when they have a legitimate tort case, but it's definitely out of control. Attorneys who take these frivolous cases have zero risk, and that needs to change.

Comment by: PVB | January 12, 2012

OK, well, I missed the fact that this was an Appellate Court decision, so my comment about 'on appeal' no longer stands. They tried that and they lost.

But, let's read more carefully elsewhere. This suit was originally "dismissed". I'm pretty sure that doesn't automatically mean it went to trial and was tossed out - can't a judge dismiss a case that's been filed as soon as he sees the paperwork - i.e. refuse to hear it? If that is correct, then maybe there wasn't all that much money spent by taxpayers - enough to pay for the prosecutor's brief to point out the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. If that is true, it was done on salaried time, so the guy who wrote that would have been paid for sitting there if not writing the brief. And this way there is a precedent of sorts. The only tax money spend paid the judge to read the filing, and he'd have been paid anyway as well. At least he set some sort of a precedent for future cases.

Am I correct? I'm not real strong on criminal law so if any of you do know it please get in on this discussion. I might learn something.

Comment by: david b | January 12, 2012

david, it's not criminal law this case deals with, it's purely civil (lawyers who practice criminal law know that the phrase "civil law" is an oxymoron). Both sides hire their own lawyers. Unfortunately, anybody can sue anybody else for any reason whatsoever, no matter how specious. While a judge can dismiss an utterly B.S. case like this, it can be done only after a defendant has taken the time, trouble, effort and cost to hire their own lawyer. Depending on the laws of a particular state, the winning side may be entitled to reimbursement of attorney fees (but how much is an ex-con doorbell repairman likely to have in their estate?).

Comment by: Visigoth52 | January 12, 2012

Also, just because the work was done by a "salary," does not mean it is less of a waste of taxpayer money. I have known very few salaried government employees who are underworked. Said salaried employee undoubtedly had other cases to handle, or could have handled the paper pile more thoroughly... (Although, as Vis has pointed out, this is a civil matter, thus public employees are not really relevant...)

Comment by: PVB | January 13, 2012

Visigoth52 - thanks for that correction. But my main question is "can a judge dismiss a suit BEFORE it results in a trial"? I'm under the impression he can, so there is far less cost involved than some of us seem to think if that is true.

P V B - I wasn't trying to say that it's less of a waste, it's just less wasted money. There's a distinction there. A LOT less if it was dismissed prior to trial. And as the people in question are salaried, the waste is there no matter what they work on, so it's still lower taxpayer waste than a trial as they can move on to other things thanks to this dismissal (as you pointed out). This was handled for relatively few dollars on the legal end. Trying to save this bozo from bleeding out probably cost more taxpayer dollars in terms medical services than the judge's decision - and was a failure too.

Comment by: david b | January 13, 2012

Yes, david, a judge can toss a case out before trial. BUT, the judge can only do so if the appropriate motions are filed. For example: You file suit against me because I'm ugly and offend you. If I don't respond to this nonsense, you win. If I respond appropriately the judge can dismiss the suit long before trial and maybe I can collect attorney fees from you. But if I don't personally know how to respond, I have to go out and hire/pay a lawyer. If you have neither a pot to pee in nor a window to throw it out of, my chances of recouping my costs (maybe thousands of dollars) is slim to none. And yes, Court time and money (funded 100% by taxpayers) is wasted on this crap every single day--see inmate suits about toilet paper not being soft enough. The chances of recouping these costs is the same.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | January 13, 2012

OK, Visigoth52. Now, the story says the case (presumably the appeal) was dismissed under PLCAA. Based on what you're telling me, the dismissal had to come via the (presumably again) 'state' filing and claiming in said filing that it wasn't a valid suit because of PLCAA, and the judge agreed. Is that a correct interpretation of your explanation?

Comment by: david b | January 13, 2012

Pretty much correct. The losing party would appeal claiming the lower court judge made a mistake (thereby costing everybody more wasted time and money), the appeals court says the judge was right. But, wait for it, the loser can appeal again to the Mass. Supreme Court. Yet more time, yet more money. Glock may be able to absorb or pass these costs along to purchasers. But what about the homeowners? Chances are their insurance "settled," i.e. paid-off, Milot's estate long ago. Why? Because it would be cheaper than defending this ridiculous suit. Worst part is that the insured has no say in settling a case.

Comment by: Visigoth52 | January 13, 2012

Through all the talk, a really welcome basic truth has emerged here..... A convicted felon, in the act of being gainfully employed, who saw fit to steal a firearm from the home of an ususpecting client, shot himself and died at the crime scene. What more poetic justice can we imagine, especially when an appeals court upholds the lower court decision?

Comment by: canovack | January 13, 2012

The homeowner was indeed fortunate that the instrument used by the idiot ex-con to off himself was a firearm, since it fell under the PLCAA. Had it been a knife or just about any other household item Mr. Hughes would probably be looking @ the mother of all personal injury judgments there in Taxachusetts.

Comment by: CHARLES S | January 15, 2012

The plaintiffs must have heard loud uproarious laughter coming from the direction of the court house as they were departing ...

Comment by: Nanjing03 | January 28, 2012