Brady Campaign encourages victim's parents to sue ammo supplier

What amazes me is how the maker of a legal product, sold in a legal manner, possibly several times, can be morally held responsible (let alone legally responsible) for an illegal act by a third (or 15th) party?
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

This should just be 'common sense'.
 
This case will go nowhere but it will take up valuable court time and inconvenience the owners of these companies and cost them money that they will hopefully recoup from the plaintiffs. Of course, at the urging of the Brady Campaign, the parents will be victimized a second time if they have to pay the costs of this case.
Click to expand...

The Brady Campaign would be delighted if the parents have to pay out damages for bringing this campaign. That would be great propaganda for their side - Look at those filthy, evil gun manufacturers demanding money from the grieving parents whose son was slain by their evil product!" It is a nice story that resounds with their base that they can use for fundraising. So it is a win-win from the Brady perspective - lose and you have good fodder for fundraising. Win and you poke peaceable gun owners in the eye.
 
While I do have sympathy for the parents, the Brady Campaign is not completely responsible for their plight.

From the story:

The Phillips have become outspoken gun restriction proponents, having knocked on doors in Colorado Springs speaking with potential recall voters in 2013, urging them to keep state Sen. John Morse in office. Morse, who vehemently backed several gun restriction bills in the state legislature, was recalled.
Click to expand...
 
Seriously mentally ill are not put into a "don't sell a gun to" data base unless they have been adjuticated mentally deficient by a court
Click to expand...

This is true; but people need to understand that the term "adjudicated mentally deficient" means different things in different jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, you can be "adjudicated mentally deficient" without ever seeing a court or a judge. That is a lot less due process than I like to see to strip someone of an express right in the Bill of Rights.
 
The complaint is artfully drafted to withstand demurrer, as it is alleged that defendants "knew" that it was substantially certain that Holmes intended his criminal conduct. Demurrer is one thing, summary judgment is another.
 
Defendants may still be able to pull off a 12(b) motion converted to a motion for summary judgment. Federal courts have a fair amount of latitude in this respect--and if there are no allegations as to how this ammo distributor knew that this guy was going to go a rampage, it is susceptible to dismissal. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act" dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top