Brady Center Sues SlideFire Solutions

S

steve4102

New member
LAS VEGAS (KSNV News3LV) — A class action lawsuit has been filed in the District Court of Clark County on behalf of the Las Vegas shooting victims.

The suit, which is filed by Las Vegas law firm Eglet Prince and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, is against Slide Fire Solutions, LP and the sellers, manufacturers, and marketers of "bump stock" devices.

More here.

http://news3lv.com/news/local/bump-...filed-on-behalf-of-las-vegas-shooting-victims

The PLCAA protects firearms manufactures and dealers from being held liable when crimes are committed with their products.

So, my question is, are Firearm accessories like Bump Stocks covered under the PLCAA statute or are they susceptible to these types of lawsuits?
 
Im not sure if they're covered but the case will go no where.
They had an approval letter from the ATF, they were conducting legit business.

I don't see how they could possibly from any sort of coherent case.

What it does do is get them attention and probably some donations.
 
We may just get it right !!!

Brady Center Sues SlideFire Solutions
Click to expand...
I've been waiting to see who was going to be first to file a lawsuit. I expect to see a bunch of "civil" lawsuits to follow. Granted, this device was ruled to be legal, under the Obama administration but that does not protect any of the manufacturers from "predictable" lawsuits that are coming. Eventually they will be regulated by the ATF and let's hope they get it right, this time ... ;)

I might add that last weekend, some dealers were asking $800.00+ for these. :eek:

Be Safe !!!
 
So, my question is, are Firearm accessories like Bump Stocks covered under the PLCAA statute or are they susceptible to these types of lawsuits?
Click to expand...
That is a very perceptive question. I do not know the answer, but perhaps one of our legal experts will weigh in.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The Prince Law Blog had an interesting discussion of that same subject. The short version: Who knows?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

From the article.

Does the PLCAA Protect Slide Fire?

While there is plenty of caselaw regarding the PLCAA, I have not seen any where accessories have been implicated. Obviously, the crux of the argument with regards to the PLCAA applying to Slide Fire would be that their product is a component part.

As we saw above, in order for the PLCAA to apply, Slide Fire must either meet the definition of Manufacturer or Seller.

Fortunately for Slide Fire, they are a Type 07 FFL, which puts them into the definition of a Manufacturer under the PLCAA.

The Slide Fire stocks are qualified products (being that they are “a component part of a firearm”). So it would naturally follow that the PLCAA would apply.
Click to expand...
 
I guess I'll never quite understand this angle from the anti-gunners. (Suing Firearms makers for crimes committed with their devices)

If it were to be possible to hold them civilly liable, it would open a can of worms that would extend far beyond firearms. How about suing Coors Brewing company for a drunken driver killing a family? If there were no booze, then we wouldn't have drunks right? Coors would say drinking to excess is misuse of thier product, but nonetheless, people drink too much and hurt/kill others. I have family members who were killed by one such drunk driver...
So let's ban booze or sue anyone who makes it!.oh wait we tried that once already.
 
How does the Brady bunch have standing in this to sue?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but possibly the same way they got standing to sue the gunshop where the Aurora Co ,movie shooter bought his guns.

If I remember right (and please, correct me if I'm wrong, just going from memory here...) a couple (actually a husband and wife) that were on their staff lived there. So, they got standing to sue. IF any Brady bunch staff lives in Vegas or was at the concert, that might do it.

This is an interesting point, because, thanks to their track record, only an idiot, or a "true believer" (but then, I repeat myself...:D) would allow themselves to be used by the Brady bunch to do this.

Last time, Brady got their employees to sue, no doubt with whispered promises of helping with /covering their legal costs. Certainly, nothing in writing.

The case was tossed, and the couple got ordered to pay a fine, AND both sides legal costs. Something on the order of $60-80,000 if I remember right.

The Brady bunch hung their patsy out to dry, coughing up not one penny to help them pay their costs. Last I heard, that couple had filed bankruptcy, and had a web site begging for donations to pay their fines....

So much for honor among gun grabbers...
 
The Prince Law Blog had an interesting discussion of that same subject. The short version: Who knows?
Click to expand...
The way that I read it, the short version is: Slide-Fire's 07 FFL is likely the only thing that might save their backside and get the suit tossed.
 
Im not sure if they're covered but the case will go no where.
They had an approval letter from the ATF, they were conducting legit business.

I don't see how they could possibly from any sort of coherent case.

What it does do is get them attention and probably some donations.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I don't think there's any such thing as an "approval letter" from the ATF. The ATF wrote a letter stating that in their opinion it's not a machine gun. That doesn't carry any legal weight and even if it did it wouldn't mean that they can't be held responsible in some other way.

I don't think they'll win this either, but they'll definitely succeed in making the manufacturer re-evaluate whether it's worth making these things.
 
1st and foremost. I get wanting some kind of justice, closure, revenge. We have to understand lots of folks had and are having the worst days of their lives and even if they are lashing out that doesn't make them the enemy. It makes them wounded and hurt and looking for something to make sense of it all.

2nd suing any of the players SHOULD NOT be allowed standing unless they showed actual criminal intent or true negligence. I mean hey if it's found that the gun store wink wink sold him the guns knowing something was gonna happen then fine sue. If the hotel saw the rifles setup at the window then yeah have at it.....etc.

To sue the device maker is a true slippery slope. Cannot sue the firearms maker but if he hadn't had that aimpoint it would have been so much better so let's sue aimpoint or leupold. How about samsonite for having suitcases big enough to hide the guns and ammo. How about honda or Ford or whomever made the car he drove.

The point is I hope our legal system handles these kinds of suits as they should but when they come from the victims let's remember they are wounded in many ways and we have all lashed out at the insanity of something or another when we have no recourse.

As for the Brady suits......those people are manipulative and uncaring to the extreme and I suspect they will entice many folks to make poor decisions that will wound them further.
 
Mississippi said:
I guess I'll never quite understand this angle from the anti-gunners. (Suing Firearms makers for crimes committed with their devices)
Click to expand...
The angle is actually quite simple. The goal is to use myriad state lawsuits against Big Tobacco as a model, and force the firearms industry to make "voluntary" changes to their business practices in order to avoid further legal liability.

IIRC one of the items on the wishlist was that semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines would be "voluntarily" dropped from production, and FFLs would "agree" not to perform BCs on said semi-auto rifles, thus making it effectively illegal to transfer one across state lines. :eek:

The PLCAA was enacted specifically to forestall these sorts of legal actions.
FrankenMauser said:
The way that I read [the Prince Law blog], the short version is: Slide-Fire's 07 FFL is likely the only thing that might save their backside and get the suit tossed.
Click to expand...
+1. IMHO this lawsuit is cynically designed to fail for propaganda purposes.

I suspect that Brady's strategy is to rely on the spurious legal argument that the SlideFire stock is somehow not a "firearm part" pursuant to the PLCAA, and their primary goal is to find a venue with an anti-gun judge who will let them take their time publicly venting their anti-gun bile before the suit is inevitably thrown out. They will then use this "failure" as an argument in favor of repealing the PLCAA. :rolleyes:

A likely secondary goal is to drive SlideFire out of business, wagering that no major organization such as the NRA or NSSF will come to their defense. Even if the Bradys are eventually forced to pay SlideFire's legal bills, it may be too late to save the company; IOW it may be a Pyrrhic victory for SlideFire.
 
Last edited:
2nd suing any of the players SHOULD NOT be allowed standing unless they showed actual criminal intent or true negligence. I mean hey if it's found that the gun store wink wink sold him the guns knowing something was gonna happen then fine
Click to expand...

Aren't bumpfire stocks kind of sold with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" in getting around laws regulating full auto firearms?
 
divil said:
IANAL, but I don't think there's any such thing as an "approval letter" from the ATF.
Click to expand...
Im not sure if they're actually called approval letters I'd have to go check the wording as I've collected a number of them.

However what you can do is ask the ATF a legal question or evaluate a product and they will render an opinion.. since ATF is the ones that enforce gun laws in this country I would assume their own rendered opinions would have SOME weight.

EX: The recent letter on shouldering pistol braces.. namely the sig stablizer.

Lohman446 said:
Aren't bumpfire stocks kind of sold with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" in getting around laws regulating full auto firearms?
Click to expand...
Who's doing the nudging and winking?
I don't recall that as ever being a marketing angle on bump stocks, trigger cranks and binary triggers.

Im not saying someone making one of those products hasn't tried to use that as a marketing ploy but I don't recall ever seeing such personally.
 
I don't recall that as ever being a marketing angle on bump stocks, trigger cranks and binary triggers.
Click to expand...

Not to be combative and this is an honest question because I always kind of just rolled my eyes and walked by when the sales pitch started the few times someone tried to sell me one at a show:

What was the marketing angle on them?
 
To quote the owner of a local gunshop up here, "Turning money into noise".

Probably not the official marketing strategy.

I've had the opportnity twice to shoot actual full auto, and greatly appreciated the shooters at the range who offered to let me give it a go. If I ever do get filthy rich, I wouldn't mind indulging the resources to purchase a transferable auto rifle. Because if I was that rich, I certainly wouldn't mind burning $45 worth of ammo in a few short seconds.

But I am not wealthy, and thus have not had any interest in the bump fire stocks. That doesn't mean i disapprove of them, nor do I want them to be regulated/banned. If there is a surge in incidents involving people committing crimes with them installed on their rifle, my thought process may change.

As for Brady center suing, as committed as they have been to pushing for gun control, this does not surprise me at all. If anything, I respect that they do not back down.

Bradys lawsuit reminds me of another quote, this time from a fictional character on The Wire, Slim Charles:
"Don't matter who did what to who at this point. Fact is, we went to war, and now there aint no going back. I mean....its what war is, you know? Once you in it, you in it. If its a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top