Suing the wrong people

I often refer to the "Only Ones," but I don't generally do posts that deal specifically with the "Only One" phenomenon--in large part because War on Guns covers the subject well enough without my help. I would, however, like to make a point about this "Only One."

We're the Only Ones Shifting the Blame Enough

A retired Los Angeles police officer paralyzed when his 3-year-old son fired his father's handgun while riding in the family pickup in Anaheim two years ago filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the gun's manufacturer.

...and the holster maker, and the stores that sold him both. I think he forgot the ammo maker and the people who authorized him to be an "Only One" and carry a gun, as that option is not available to mere citizens in LA County.

The Armed Schoolteacher, by the way, also has some good commentary about this situation:

The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges.

That is to say, if you pull the trigger on this Glock pistol, it discharges one shot. I'd never really thought much about it, but my own Glock 30 has the same design flaw! I can't think of one time over the years when I've pulled the trigger on that Glock with a round chambered and not been rewarded with a loud bang. I think I've just gotten in the habit of thinking that if you pull the trigger of a gun, it fires, and if you don't pull the trigger, it doesn't. Probably dangerous to rely on a crutch like that, but there you go.

Most mammals, I would hope, have enough going on in the ol' cerebral cortex to realize that this is a lawsuit that doesn't make a lot of sense, because holsters are supposed to allow guns to be removed from them, and guns are supposed to fire when the trigger is pulled.

Sadly, Officer Chavez apparently does not have quite the mental equipment necessary to figure that out, but ironically, that might be where he can make a real case. David, you'll remember, said:

I think he forgot the ammo maker and the people who authorized him to be an "Only One" and carry a gun, as that option is not available to mere citizens in LA County.

My point is that I think Officer Chavez's attorney should try to determine whether or not the L.A.P.D. has hiring standards similar to those of the New London (Connecticut) police department.

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

(h/t yet another WoG post) If the L.A.P.D. does have a similar policy in place, and thus intelligence is a disqualifying factor for a job that requires the carrying of a lethal weapon (such work being, indeed, about the only way someone living in that part of the country can legally carry a loaded firearm), then I would think that the fact that Officer Chavez wasn't bright enough to keep his loaded gun away from his 3-year-old would indicate that there are some serious problems with such a policy. Problems, indeed, serious enough to warrant a lawsuit.

The Brady Campaign has recently taken to pointing out every anecdote they can find of private citizens doing stupid things with guns, with the intended lesson being that normal, private citizens aren't qualified to handle guns (as if their trickle of anecdotes amounts to a significant percentage of the scores of millions of gun owners in the U.S.). Are we expected, then, to leave our protection to big-brained Officer Chavez (and his 3-year-old)?