$39 Million Settlement on Taurus Pistols; Nine Models may be Unsafe

Taurus has suffered its share of haters—as every manufacturer does. Some complaints are valid and others are simply sour grapes, operator error, or blaming the gun when it was the ammunition selection that caused the problem. However, at times, designs are flawed and fail. Remington had its recall, as did Smith and Wesson in the last few years. While the Taurus Curve and Taurus Judge changed how many shooters defined a carry gun, the Taurus’ recall will blemish nine other models—PT-111 Millennium; PT-132 Millennium; PT-138 Millennium; PT-140 Millennium; PT-145 Millennium; PT-745 Millennium; PT-609; PT-640 and PT-24/7.
In May 2015, Taurus agreed to a $39 million settlement that satisfies a class action lawsuit, which alleges that nine different models of Taurus handguns may discharge when dropped, even though the safety is engaged. Owners of any of the nine models have the option to return their handguns to Taurus for service, receive between $150 and $200 or training in handling the firearm.
The details of the settlement also extend the warranty of the identified models. This would allow Taurus’ technicians to make the necessary repairs or replacements as detailed in the lawsuit. Because as many as 1 million guns are subject to the lawsuit and returns, and judging from the lessons of previous recalls, Taurus owners returning their firearms may expect a delay of several months—which is still better than an unsafe safety.

This image is allegedly the Taurus PT-140PRO that lead to the lawsuit.
Photo courtesy of Grandview Outdoors.

The Backstory

The process and lawsuit all began when a sheriff’s deputy from Iowa recalled dropping his Taurus PT-140PRO during a pursuit. The deputy’s sidearm discharged upon impact even though the safety was engaged. Upon inspection, it was noted that the spent case remained in the chamber. This in-and-of itself may or may not have been worthy of a legal challenge, especially if it was a defect and not a design flaw.
However, in the deputy’s September 2014 class-action lawsuit, he alleged that Taurus knew of the defect and failed to inform the public to the danger or attempt in any way to fix it. After the settlement, Taurus has not been found to be guilty of the allegation that it knew of the problem and has been forthcoming in urging the public to return any potentially affected handgun for prompt inspection and servicing.

Damning Details

According to the lawsuit, a few details were pretty damning. “Despite actual knowledge of the Safety Defects, Taurus has never remedied either Defect, has never issued an effective and complete warning to the public or recall of the Class Pistols and Taurus continues to falsely represent to the public that the Class Pistols are safe and reliable. In fact, Taurus is aware that individuals have been seriously injured as a result of the Safety Defects, and it is only a matter of time before more individuals are seriously injured or killed.”
Other evidence went on to show Taurus was ordered to pay a $1.2 million to an Alabama man who was shot when his PT-111 dropped to the floor and discharged in 2009. The Sao Paulo, Brazil, police recalled its Taurus .40 caliber handguns after discovering the pistols could discharge with the safety engaged.

Good News?

Well, if you own a Curve, Judge or any model sans the nine listed, including any of the popular G2 models there is no evidence that you have anything to worry about. However, if you own any of the affected pistols (PT-111 Millennium; PT-132 Millennium; PT-138 Millennium; PT-140 Millennium; PT-145 Millennium; PT-745 Millennium; PT-609; PT-640 and PT-24/7) return it back to Taurus quickly and be safe.

DP-12 Double Barrel Pump Repeater 12 Gauge Shotgun 16 Round Capacity

Category: Shotguns » Pump » 12 Gauge

Click here to view a larger image

DP-12 Double Barrel Pump Repeater 12 Gauge Shotgun 16 Round Capacity Manufactured by Standard Manufacturing 6 Customer Reviews Our Low Price: $1,395.00 Shipping is only $10.00 on firearm orders! No additional shipping cost for more guns on this order. Ships from warehouse: What is this? Typically ships within 1 business day after a valid FFL has been received *Note! Image may not be an exact representation of the actual item. Please read the complete description before purchasing.

APPEARS IN News Legal & Legislation

Los Angeles City Council Targets Law-Abiding With Magazine Ban

Friday, July 31, 2015

More

Back in 2013, the city of Los Angeles’s city council proposed an ordinance banning the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds (so-called “large-capacity” magazines). Unfortunately, on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, after a two year delay, the city council unanimously passed an amended version of this useless ordinance and sent it to the Mayor for his signature, which the Mayor has indicated he is eager to provide. 

This ordinance will not prevent violent crime or mass shootings, but it does limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners who choose these magazines to defend themselves and their families.  As most gun owners already know, magazines holding more than ten rounds are standard equipment for many popular pistols and rifles, especially those that are selected for defensive purposes.  These standard capacity magazines are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense.

If signed into law, people who legally possess magazines over 10 rounds have a 60-day grace period to sell those magazines, remove the magazines from the city, or turn them over to Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Unlike California’s magazine law, individuals currently in lawful possession of these magazines will not be protected by a “grandfather” clause. The ordinance effectively amounts to confiscation because the magazines must either be turned-in or removed from within city limits. Either option obviously eliminates the inherent value in these magazines as tools for self-defense.

Sunnyvale and San Francisco have already adopted similar ordinances, and both of those ordinances have been challenged in court. The NRA supported case against the Sunnyvale ordinance is currently awaiting an appeal after the Ninth Circuit ruled against an attempt to prevent the ordinance from going into effect.    

These ordinances give insight into what anti-gun activists will pursue if given the opportunity. Law abiding citizens who are in compliance with California’s already burdensome gun laws are not a public safety threat, yet Sunnyvale, San Francisco, and now Los Angeles are seeking to turn the law-abiding into criminals one step at a time. While court battles against these ordinances continue, the best option for gun owners is to ensure that their elected representatives, including those at the local level, understand that ineffective, ideologically-driven restrictions on our Second Amendment rights have consequences at the ballot box.

  

APPEARS IN News

When Bureaucrats Make “Sport” of Fundamental Liberties, Congress Must Act

| Friday, July 31, 2015

More

In May, I discussed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ varying interpretations of the phrase “sporting purposes” in federal gun control law. We had just fought the agency to a standstill over its plan to ban the manufacture and importation of the M855 cartridge, the second most common variety of ammunition for America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15. B. Todd Jones, then director of BATFE, resigned in the aftermath of that debacle, but not before telling a Senate Appropriations Committee that with pistol platforms for the cartridge available, “any 5.56 round, it’s a challenge for officer safety, public safety.” 

With statements like that, Mr. Jones will not be missed by the pro-gun community. But the attitude he displayed, and the events surrounding M855 ammunition earlier this year, point toward a more fundamental problem with federal gun control that will not go away with the tabling of one bad proposal or the departure of another BATFE official. That problem arises from two words: “sporting purposes.” By making undefined “sporting purposes” the test for legality under numerous federal firearms laws, Congress not only delegated too much discretion to BATFE, it deemphasized the primary reason Americans own firearms and the primary purpose of their constitutional protection. That reason is self-defense. 

While the NRA has no problem with sports, or the sporting use of arms, that phrase misses the point when it comes to heart of the Second Amendment.  By making undefined “sporting purposes” the test for legality under numerous federal firearms laws, Congress not only delegated too much discretion to BATFE, it deemphasized the primary reason Americans own firearms and the primary purpose of their constitutional protection. That reason is self-defense. The M855 episode is just the latest example of why the current congressional scheme, administered by the highly-politicized BATFE, has become untenable. With your help, and the help of Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the NRA intends to see this problem fixed for good.

In June, Rep. Bishop introduced a bill to “revise various laws that interfere with right of the people to obtain and use firearms for all lawful purposes,” known more simply as the “Sporting Purposes Reform Act.” Before I discuss the specifics of that legislation, I’d like to elaborate upon the meaning of the Second Amendment and its place in American culture and constitutional structure.

When I say that self-defense is at the heart of the Second Amendment, I’m not alone. According to the results of a Pew Research Center poll released in March 2013, “protection” was the number one reason Americans cited for owning a gun, nearly eclipsing all other reasons combined. The percentage mentioning protection was nine points higher than the combined percentage mentioning hunting, target or other sporting shooting. Nearly eight in ten gun owners surveyed revealed owing a gun made them feel safer. Gallup also reported last November that 63% of Americans, a record-high percentage, now believe that having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be. 

Yet while public sentiment is important, the Constitution has its own independent meaning, established by the Founders and meant to carry the nation through good times and bad. In the case of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has made clear that individual protection comprises the “core” of the right to keep and bear arms.

Although gun control advocates like to pretend otherwise, this was clear even before the landmark Heller and McDonald cases of the 21^st Century. At the extreme, firearm prohibitionists cite the 1939 case of United States v. Miller as holding the Second Amendment protects only a “collective” right of states to maintain their own militias. 

To the contrary, the Court’s opinion in that case took for granted that Miller – who never claimed membership in a state militia – could raise a Second Amendment claim against federal regulations that applied to his personally owned short-barreled shotgun. The Court noted that at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, “the militia” was understood to comprise “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” When called for service, “these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Thus, Miller’s actual participation in an organized militia was considered irrelevant to the resolution of the case. Rather, the Court focused on the character of the weapon Miller possessed and whether it could be considered among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. Such arms, the opinion indicated, include those in common use at the time which are either “part of the ordinary military equipment” or the use of which “could contribute to the common defense.” Because Miller had not put forth evidence on any of these matters, and because the Court could not say as a matter of common knowledge that a short-barreled shotgun met these criteria, it ruled against Miller on the Second Amendment claim.  The Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller reinforced this message. There, the court held that “the right to keep and bear arms” means “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” The sort of confrontations the Court was referencing are not those involving big game or occurring between contestants at the National Matches. Rather, they involve resistance against lawless acts of violence, whether that involves repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, opposing tyranny, or protecting one’s home or person against a dangerous criminal.

Nevertheless, what is clear from the Court’s opinion is that to be considered within the scope of the Second Amendment, a firearm has to be of the sort that an ordinary person summoned to defend the community would be expected to own and could use for that purpose. While “sporting” arms are not necessarily excluded from this category, the suitability of a firearm for deer hunting or trap shooting is not the controlling inquiry. Rather, the test hinges on the firearm’s usefulness in defense.  

The Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller reinforced this message. There, the court held that “the right to keep and bear arms” means “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” The sort of confrontations the Court was referencing are not those involving big game or occurring between contestants at the National Matches. Rather, they involve resistance against lawless acts of violence, whether that involves repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, opposing tyranny, or protecting one’s home or person against a dangerous criminal. While the Heller Court reiterated that preserving the militia justified including the Second Amendment in in the Bill of Rights, it also emphasized that purpose did not limit or confine the scope of the right itself. The right to keep and bear arms, the Court wrote, is derived from and embodies “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” 

The Heller Court determined that handguns were among the arms protected by the Second Amendment, not because they are used for Bullseye or silhouette competition, but because the people themselves choose them to defend life and property. The “American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon,” the Court stated. Accordingly, “a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court reasserted that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right … and … individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”

Against this backdrop, the idea that federal firearms law should draw the line of legality at “sporting purposes” is clearly not sustainable, at least not when BATFE insists on making artificial distinctions of the sort I discussed in May between the “sporting” and practical uses of firearms. The fundamentals of marksmanship and the proper handling of firearms developed in a sporting context can certainly be transferrable to the “real world” use of firearms in a confrontation. Yet when a bureaucrat takes so narrow a view of “sporting purposes” that the term excludes arms or features specifically because of their suitability for protective purposes, Congress must intervene.

That’s exactly what Rep. Bishop’s bill would do. By removing “sporting purposes” as the governing standard in various provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, the legislation would accomplish a world of good for gun owners. The bill would eliminate BATFE’s authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” It would ensure the same types of firearms and ammunition already commonly available to Americans from domestic manufacturers could also be imported. It would protect shotguns, shotgun shells, and larger caliber rifles from arbitrary classification as highly-restricted “destructive devices.” 

Rep. Bishop’s description of the bill speaks volumes: “The founding fathers recognized that the right to bear arms is fundamentally tied to self-defense. This is as true today as it was over two centuries ago when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The BATFE has exploited vagaries present in federal gun law to chip away at basic rights. This legislation will slap the over-reaching hand of the federal government and restore some of the freedoms our grandparents enjoyed.”

Reform of this sort is long overdue, and we thank Rep. Bishop for his leadership in this vital effort. It’s time for BATFE to stop gaming your rights. It’s time for Congress to blow the whistle on “sporting purposes.”    

APPEARS IN News

Gun Control "Study" Misses the Mark Badly on Lawful Self-Defense

Friday, July 31, 2015

More

Likely as a response to the growing number of American’s who have come to realize that having a firearm makes them safer, a blogger at the washingtonpost.com recently reported on a “study ” by an anti-gun professor that attempts to discredit the utility of carrying a firearm for self-defense by placing participants into simulated self-defense scenarios. The “study” was notably prepared for the anti-gun group National Gun Victims Action Council.

The thrust of the Post article is a not-so-veiled attempt to convince readers that carry permit holders are unprepared for most self-defense encounters. However, the “study” doesn’t actually show this at all. The “study” didn’t limit the participants to concealed carry permit holders. Therefore, the conclusions in the study can’t be applied to people who have actually made the decision to carry a gun for self-defense.

Perhaps the most interesting finding, given the “study’s” consistent recommendation of extensive training for carry permit holders, is that there was no statistical evidence that training improved participants’ accuracy during the simulated encounters, largely due to the fact that the scenarios were so badly designed. But even without any evidence, the authors of the “study” press on, which is not uncommon among anti-gun fanatics trying to advance their cause.

Self-defense simulations are not needed to determine if lawfully armed citizens can defend themselves from criminal attacks. Armed citizens defend themselves and others on a daily basis. Just a few examples from this month show that armed citizens are able to consistently make the correct split-second decisions in real-life encounters with violent attack. On July 3, a Milwaukee clothing storeowner used an AR-15 to repel three armed men who had already crashed a van through the front of his store. In Georgia, an Army veteran ended an armed robbery with accurate fire from his lawfully carried pistol. In perhaps the best example, only days after Kansas’ permitless carry law took effect, an armed citizen carrying under the new provision foiled an armed robbery without firing a shot.

With over 11 million armed citizens with carry permits and many more carrying where no permit is required, criminals are more and more likely to be confronted by a lawfully armed citizen, which can only lead to more Americans understanding the societal benefits of having “a good guy with a gun” when and where you need them most.

APPEARS IN News Second Amendment

Famed Law Professor, Defense Attorney Latest to Suggest Second Amendment Needs to Go

Friday, July 31, 2015

More

The legal profession is full of blowhards, egomaniacs, hypocrites, and elitists, but even so, rarely are all those qualities present in a single individual to the same degree as in Alan Dershowitz. At age 28, Dershowitz became the youngest full professor of law in history with his appointment at Harvard. And, yes, it went to his head. He has written that he “does not hide behind the distorting shield of false humility” and has even suggested things might have gone differently for Jesus if he had been there to represent him. When not busy indoctrinating impressionable law students in his own particular brand of politics, Prof. Dershowitz has advocated on behalf of various celebrity clients, including in highly-publicized cases involving allegations of murderous domestic violence. 

Despite his reputation in some circles as a civil rights champion, Dershowitz is no fan of the Second Amendment. He has advocated for a variety of gun controls, including banning all semi-automatic firearms. As he said on the (since cancelled) Piers Morgan show, “If I could ban 100 percent of guns without violating the Constitution, I would do that ….” In the same appearance, he called the idea that guns have a role in protecting liberty “a myth.” Nevertheless, at least at one point, he was willing to go on record as admitting the Second Amendment protects an “individual right to ownership of guns,” although subject to regulation.  

Nevertheless, Dershowitz (who admitted in 2003 that he's never held a pistol) on Monday claimed America’s “experiment” with private ownership of firearms “has failed miserably.” During an appearance on Newsmax TV, he went on to say, “If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms.”   

Even though Dershowitz is famed for his expansive readings of other provisions of the Bill of Rights, he would have no problem regulating the Second Amendment into oblivion.  “What is needed,” he said, “is some very tough legislation on both the federal and state level to make it much, much harder to get guns and to create a presumption against gun ownership instead of a presumption in favor of gun ownership ….”

Although perhaps the most obnoxious, Dershowitz is by no means the first legal prima donna to suggest rewriting the Bill of Rights to eliminate the Second Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly suggested that a “future, wiser court” could revisit the landmark Heller decision, which recognized a private right to arms under the Second Amendment. Later, in a televised appearance from Cairo, Egypt, Justice Ginsburg remarked that she “would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” 

More recently, another dissenter from the Heller case, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote an entire book about how he would refashion the U.S. Constitution to his liking. Among his suggestions is limiting “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the Second Amendment with the phrase, “when serving in the militia.” 

While we at the NRA don’t think much of their constitutional scholarship, we can at least credit these influential legal thinkers for their candor and for illustrating the true philosophical underpinnings of the gun control movement. No matter how else they may couch their rhetoric – most recently as “gun safety” proponents, gun control advocates simply hate guns and do not trust the American people to have them.  It should surprise no one that the legal elites among them are perfectly willing to repeal or judicially nullify the Second Amendment entirely.  

The next U.S. president could appoint perhaps three or even four Supreme Court justices to a bench where the Heller and McDonald decisions currently survive by one vote. The importance of who makes those appointments should not be lost on those who value the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever else can be said of his tendency towards incessant bloviation, that’s one lesson from Prof. Dershowitz we all should heed.

  

 

Join | Renew | Donate

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation News

Take Two Losses and Call Me in the Morning: Florida Court Again Sides With Patient Privacy, Hands Nosy Doctors Second Defeat

Friday, July 31, 2015

More

Anti-gun doctors may need to get their own blood pressure checked after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit again upheld Florida’s Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act. 

As we reported last summer, the law was passed after an escalating series of events in which patients were harassed or denied access to services because they refused to be interrogated by their doctors about their ownership of firearms.  A group of Florida doctors committed to the idea of haranguing patients for exercising their Second Amendment rights sued, claiming a First Amendment right to grill patients about firearm ownership, even where it isn’t relevant to the patient’s care.

Unsurprisingly, the appellate court upheld the law last July, stating: “The essence of the Act is simple: medical practitioners should not record information or inquire about patients’ firearm-ownership status when doing so is not necessary to providing the patient with good medical care.” Far from a ban on doctors’ expressing their views about firearms or other public policy or medical issues, the court held, the Act merely “protects a patient’s ability to receive effective medical treatment without compromising the patient’s privacy with regard to matters unrelated to healthcare.” 

It’s no secret that the medical establishment has long been hostile toward the private ownership of firearms. No less a doctor than President Obama’s pick for U.S. Surgeon General has engaged in anti-gun activism.  Even WebMD.com, a common online source for medical information, counsels parents to “to avoid keeping guns and firearms in the home,” and only provides recommendations for “secure” storage when purging the home of firearms altogether “is not possible.” This history, as well as outright discrimination against patients who refused to discuss their gun ownership, formed the backdrop for Florida’s law.

It’s also no surprise that the plaintiffs and other gun control advocates were not happy with the loss the Eleventh Circuit handed to them back in 2014. “Censorship in Your Doctor’s Office,” huffed the New York Times. A Florida physician’s group called the decision “egregious” and “dangerous” and claimed it would silence “life-saving conversations.” 

In any case, the panel of judges that issued the original opinion decided on their own initiative to revisit their original analysis. The results of that reconsideration were issued on Tuesday, in a revised 77-page opinion. Spoiler alert: the doctors still lose and patient privacy still wins.

Whereas the original opinion characterized the regulated behavior more as conduct – i.e., medical practice – rather than pure speech, the revised opinion delves more deeply into the First Amendment claims raised by the plaintiffs. Finding that inquiries into gun ownership, entries about gun ownership in medical records, and even verbal “harassment” of gun owners are all forms of “speech” protected by the First Amendment, the court then considers the seriousness of the regulatory intrusion and level of scrutiny to be applied to it. 

The court observes, “All regulations of speech are not created equal in the eyes of the First Amendment.” Here, the court characterizes the regulated expression as “professional speech.” It then finds the government has a freer hand to regulate in this context because of “the authority—duty, even—of States to regulate the practice of professions to ‘shield the public against the untrustworthy, the incompetent, or the irresponsible.’” In this case, “The State made the commonsense determination that inquiry about firearm ownership, a topic which many of its citizens find highly private, falls outside the bounds of good medical care to the extent the physician knows such inquiry to be entirely irrelevant to the medical care or safety of a patient or any person.” The court therefore determines that “intermediate scrutiny” is the proper standard for evaluating the law.

The court identifies the state’s interests in enacting the law as “protecting the public by regulating the medical profession so as to safeguard patient privacy,” which it finds “substantial” enough to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. It then goes on to find that the law’s requirements have a “direct and material” relationship to alleviating those harms. Citing the legislative record of complaints against physicians, and the limited nature of the restrictions imposed by the law, the court determines “’simple common sense’ furnishes ample support for the legislature’s decision.” “The State need not point to peer-reviewed studies or conduct extensive surveys,” the opinion states, “to establish that proscribing highly intrusive speech that physicians themselves do not believe to be relevant or necessary directly advances the State’s interest in protecting its citizens from harmful or ineffective professional practices and safeguarding their privacy.”

We certainly agree, and we credit the Court for its thorough, well-reasoned opinion. Whether it’s the final word in the case, however, remains to be seen. One of the three judges hearing the case filed a lengthy dissent, echoing the familiar refrain that doctors’  must be free to address the “public health problem” posed by firearms according to their own beliefs. The plaintiffs still have the options of petitioning the full roster of Eleventh Circuit judges to hear the case en banc or to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. 

IN THIS ARTICLE

Florida Wollschlaeger v. Governor State of Florida

More

RELATED

Florida Firearm Owners' Privacy Act Under Review

Nelson Needs To Go

Wayne LaPierre: 2003 Meetings

Chris W. Cox: 2003 Meetings

Craig Sandler: 2003 Meetings

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

EXPLORE NRA-ILA

• News
• Gun Laws
• Legal & Legislation
• Hunting
• Take Action
• Media Center
• Press Inquiries
• About
• Contact Us
• Donate
• Privacy Policy
• 
  

FOLLOW NRA-ILA

STAY INFORMED

Receive important and timely information in defense of your second amendment rights.

© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. 11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, VA 22030    1-800-392-8683(VOTE)