Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Lempitski
What happened was the Attorney General got together with the state product safety board and they came up with criteria for what they determined to be "safer" handguns. Each manufacturer is to submit so many samples of each gun type for "safety testing" - drop tests, etc. at a cost of around $5000.00 per gun. They also require guns to have such things as minimum poundage for trigger pulls, magazine disconnects, loaded indicators, etc. What is really curious is why the brand new MK3s and 22/45 pistols that were already in Mass and for sale in the stores were recalled by Ruger? Obviously they had to get them out of state for some reason.... A neighbor of mine has a relative working at the Ruger factory in NH, hopefully I can get the full story of what happened from him.
|
Well, Ruger may have taken such action to avoid possible litigation in the future. Corporations tend to be pro active in that respect.
But look at it from a different aspect. Any guns shipped by Ruger go to a distributor. The distributor pays for them and 'legally' the guns become the legal property of the distributor.
The distributor sells the weapons to a dealer and at that point the weapons become the legal property of the dealer.
At either of the two stages, Ruger no longer is the owner of the weapons and has no legal rights to them.
Simply put - the dealers caved. The dealers could have easily said that they had already sold the weapons, or just said no to Ruger, etc.
An analogy is whether an individual who purchased such a weapon - could be forced by Ruger - to return it. The answer is No because it was no longer the legal property of Ruger.
(One might have problems with the State, but that is a different ball of wax.)