Cuchulainn
New member
>>According to Kopel, the murderer got off BECAUSE
>>it was premeditated.
Why does my head hurt? Why is the ceiling spinning?
>>it was premeditated.
Why does my head hurt? Why is the ceiling spinning?
Drudge: GUNMAKER HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MURDER; JURY AWARDS $24 MILLION
- Thread starter Pendragon
- Start date
- Status
Ben Swenson
New member
Of course, of course. Everything makes sense now.
Because he meant to do it, he can't be held responsible for it. Suddenly a new world of crime without punishment is opened to 14 year old Floridians, eh?
Because he meant to do it, he can't be held responsible for it. Suddenly a new world of crime without punishment is opened to 14 year old Floridians, eh?
BrianB,
The gun owner had locked up his guns. The doors to his safe (his house) were locked. What makes you think that if someone has the will to break into a house and steal, that they don't have the will to get some cable cutters for a gun cable? Would the owner have been liable if his guns were in yet another locked container in addition to the house and after hours of searching, the thief found the key in the house? Should the owner have locked up the keys to the safe and then locked up the keys to the safe holding the keys to the safe?
If we are responsible for people's criminal misuse of items obtained criminally, then what are the criminal's responsible for? I'm sorry, but what you said is laughably absurd.
The owner was not negligent. His house is his property. His items functioned properly and were not made readily available due to irresponsibility. He didn't leave them at a park or anything like that.
The gun owner had locked up his guns. The doors to his safe (his house) were locked. What makes you think that if someone has the will to break into a house and steal, that they don't have the will to get some cable cutters for a gun cable? Would the owner have been liable if his guns were in yet another locked container in addition to the house and after hours of searching, the thief found the key in the house? Should the owner have locked up the keys to the safe and then locked up the keys to the safe holding the keys to the safe?
If we are responsible for people's criminal misuse of items obtained criminally, then what are the criminal's responsible for? I'm sorry, but what you said is laughably absurd.
The owner was not negligent. His house is his property. His items functioned properly and were not made readily available due to irresponsibility. He didn't leave them at a park or anything like that.
Well, although the articles aren't specific, the owner of the firearm has been called a family friend, so the B&E is a questionable assumption. I'd like to know if the kid broke in or just walked in b/c he was allowed to be in the house. I don't think any of the articles I've read on this were specific on that point.
I cannot believe that so many people advocate leaving a loaded firearm laying in a dresser drawer. That's ludicrous.
If it's not in your hand or in your immediate area of control, it should be locked up. Period. Why is that a difficult concept? This isn't a wallet, a knife, a car, or a baseball bat, it is a firearm, and securing it when not on your person is a very basic tennant of safety and security.
If you're away from home and your firearm is in your dresser, it's not going to be much use to you anyway, so tell me exactly how securing it is a bad idea.
As for the home being a safe analogy, bull. Houses are VERY easy to break into unless expensive steps are taken to secure them. AFAIK, B&E hasn't been established.
As to the kid being responsible, yes he is. Someone else has already pointed out that this was a civil case, and they can't really sue a minor for millions of dollars. The kid was sentenced to 28 years, which IMO is a bit of a light sentence.
I cannot believe that so many people advocate leaving a loaded firearm laying in a dresser drawer. That's ludicrous.
If it's not in your hand or in your immediate area of control, it should be locked up. Period. Why is that a difficult concept? This isn't a wallet, a knife, a car, or a baseball bat, it is a firearm, and securing it when not on your person is a very basic tennant of safety and security.
If you're away from home and your firearm is in your dresser, it's not going to be much use to you anyway, so tell me exactly how securing it is a bad idea.
As for the home being a safe analogy, bull. Houses are VERY easy to break into unless expensive steps are taken to secure them. AFAIK, B&E hasn't been established.
As to the kid being responsible, yes he is. Someone else has already pointed out that this was a civil case, and they can't really sue a minor for millions of dollars. The kid was sentenced to 28 years, which IMO is a bit of a light sentence.
First of all, I believe its been stated it was unloaded. But that is irrelevant. Criminals are just as capable of loading a gun as the gun owner. Second, the very act of going into someone's house to steal is criminal and other forms of securing the firearm does not necessarily stop criminal intent. You are pushing the line. And once you let it get pushed, you can't stop it. It is absolutely ludicrous that anyone would hold someone accountable for something stolen from their private property. What was the owner's responsibility? To not shoot people. He lived up to his end.
Read the posted quote. According to that, it was loaded. Not that I'm taking anything the press says at face value, but let's assume for the sake of argument that this is the case. That's what my first post stated.
The point is that the owner was irresponsible.
Explain to me how storing a loaded firearm in an unlocked dresser is a good thing.
I've already stated that you cannot stop a determined thief, but taking no measures whatsoever to secure a firearm is the issue here.
If you think the responsibility for owning a firearm stops at not shooting someone with it, we're not going to agree. If you can explain to me why leaving a loaded firearm stored in an unlocked dresser isn't a really bad idea, I'm willing to listen. So far, nobody has.
The point is that the owner was irresponsible.
Explain to me how storing a loaded firearm in an unlocked dresser is a good thing.
I've already stated that you cannot stop a determined thief, but taking no measures whatsoever to secure a firearm is the issue here.
If you think the responsibility for owning a firearm stops at not shooting someone with it, we're not going to agree. If you can explain to me why leaving a loaded firearm stored in an unlocked dresser isn't a really bad idea, I'm willing to listen. So far, nobody has.
Hand_Rifle_Guy
New member
Guns are like seat belts. 'Tis better to have, and not need, than to not have when needed.
Generally, when needed, a gun is needed NOW. Meaning with ZERO advanced notice, which leaves absolutely no time to unsecure and reload.
This is the fallacy with triggerlocks. A secured gun is tantamount to useless.
Unlocked and loaded in a dresser drawer can be improved upon only by actually carrying the gun in hand, or at least on one's person. Unfortunately, the gubmint generally frowns on such expediency, regardless of the 2nd. ammendment.
If you're answer to this is to keep it secured when you're not home, I object to shifting responsibility for the criminal behavior of others to the victim of the crime. The victim niether stole nor subsequently used the gun for any criminal purpose. The argument that secured in a locked house isn't secured just doesn't wash. Manufacturing criminals by spreading culpability in such a way is a Liberal-style solution to crime. Expect no agreement with such reasoning here.
Knives, bats, and cars are all more lethal than guns. None of them run themselves, or are any degree more culpable for people's actions than any other inanimate object.
Transferring responsibilty for a crime to the victim of said crime is the ludicrous proposition, here. The degree of security around the object of the crime doesn't even come into it. Security for guns is mostly to keep them from being stolen so that you don't LOSE them, not to prevent their use by criminals, which is merely a serendipitous by-product.
Additionally, one generally locks up guns around the house for safety reasons because of the presence of very small children who are unaware of the lethal potential inherent in the weapon. A fourteen-year-old certainly knows better, as illustrated by the fact that he stole the gun to use it for it's intended purpose.
No one locks up a kitchen full of ten-inch long slivers of sharp metal because of their dangerous potential. Criminal behavior requires criminal INTENT, by my definition.
Not living inside a high-walled fortress, behind a moat, with armed security with guard dogs, and an electrified fence is not criminal intent. It is not my responsibility to force people to be compliant with laws. It is THEIR responsibility to not break them by behaving criminally. This concept is what we nominally call civilization.
Generally, when needed, a gun is needed NOW. Meaning with ZERO advanced notice, which leaves absolutely no time to unsecure and reload.
This is the fallacy with triggerlocks. A secured gun is tantamount to useless.
Unlocked and loaded in a dresser drawer can be improved upon only by actually carrying the gun in hand, or at least on one's person. Unfortunately, the gubmint generally frowns on such expediency, regardless of the 2nd. ammendment.
If you're answer to this is to keep it secured when you're not home, I object to shifting responsibility for the criminal behavior of others to the victim of the crime. The victim niether stole nor subsequently used the gun for any criminal purpose. The argument that secured in a locked house isn't secured just doesn't wash. Manufacturing criminals by spreading culpability in such a way is a Liberal-style solution to crime. Expect no agreement with such reasoning here.
Knives, bats, and cars are all more lethal than guns. None of them run themselves, or are any degree more culpable for people's actions than any other inanimate object.
Transferring responsibilty for a crime to the victim of said crime is the ludicrous proposition, here. The degree of security around the object of the crime doesn't even come into it. Security for guns is mostly to keep them from being stolen so that you don't LOSE them, not to prevent their use by criminals, which is merely a serendipitous by-product.
Additionally, one generally locks up guns around the house for safety reasons because of the presence of very small children who are unaware of the lethal potential inherent in the weapon. A fourteen-year-old certainly knows better, as illustrated by the fact that he stole the gun to use it for it's intended purpose.
No one locks up a kitchen full of ten-inch long slivers of sharp metal because of their dangerous potential. Criminal behavior requires criminal INTENT, by my definition.
Not living inside a high-walled fortress, behind a moat, with armed security with guard dogs, and an electrified fence is not criminal intent. It is not my responsibility to force people to be compliant with laws. It is THEIR responsibility to not break them by behaving criminally. This concept is what we nominally call civilization.
Brain, your whole philosophy plays right into the hands of the Sarah Brady bunch, that firearms are inheritly evil - so much so, that their owners and manufacturers are to be held liable even when someone illegally acquires possession of said firearm & does harm with it.
Also, you would seem to tell me that if I have friends or visitors in my home, that I should expect them to be going thru my drawers to steal from me.
I guess unless you have it on your hip, your guns are unloaded & locked up? That's fine, but if scum gains entry into your home & they have a loaded gun, someone stands a good chance of getting toasted while you go running for your locked gun & stored ammo.
Sorry - it doesn't wash. Unless you are ready to accept the responsibility for any damage done with any article taken illegally & without knowledge from your home, it is simply anti-gun rhetoric. No way do I think I'm responsible for the acts of someone who steals from me, and that I can't have a loaded gun accessable to defend my home & family.
Also, you would seem to tell me that if I have friends or visitors in my home, that I should expect them to be going thru my drawers to steal from me.
I guess unless you have it on your hip, your guns are unloaded & locked up? That's fine, but if scum gains entry into your home & they have a loaded gun, someone stands a good chance of getting toasted while you go running for your locked gun & stored ammo.
Sorry - it doesn't wash. Unless you are ready to accept the responsibility for any damage done with any article taken illegally & without knowledge from your home, it is simply anti-gun rhetoric. No way do I think I'm responsible for the acts of someone who steals from me, and that I can't have a loaded gun accessable to defend my home & family.
All I see are straw man arguments, here, sorry. I'd appreciate it when you set up your straw men, if you didn't tell me about all my anti-gun attitudes.
What I'm saying is as basic a tenant as not pointing the muzzle at anythig you don't intend to destroy. It's about responsibility. I'm not talking about shifting blame from the criminal at all. The thief is responsible for his actions. The careless idiot who leaves an unsecured firearm laying around is responsible for his acts.
Let's set this case aside so we can eliminate some of the straw men from the get go, and I'll give you a real life example of someone I came across who I thought was irresponsible. Here's the case:
My work buddy and I decided to go to the range. He tells me he has a friend who has a few guns he told him we can take with us, so we go to said friend's house. My friend uses his key to the guy's place to get in, and we go to pick up the guns. One of these was a loaded .357, holstered on the guy's nightstand. It wasn't left there to pick up, the guy was out of town for a couple days, being a truck driver. This was where the weapon was commonly kept.
Just answer this: Was this guy being irresponsible or not by leaving the gun on his nightstand?
Yes or no, no straw men, no accusations of my anti-gun tendancies. If yes, fine, I bow out, and we disagree. If no, then tell me why you think this guy isn't responsible. Then tell me how this is any different than the behavior of the person in this case.
What I'm saying is as basic a tenant as not pointing the muzzle at anythig you don't intend to destroy. It's about responsibility. I'm not talking about shifting blame from the criminal at all. The thief is responsible for his actions. The careless idiot who leaves an unsecured firearm laying around is responsible for his acts.
Let's set this case aside so we can eliminate some of the straw men from the get go, and I'll give you a real life example of someone I came across who I thought was irresponsible. Here's the case:
My work buddy and I decided to go to the range. He tells me he has a friend who has a few guns he told him we can take with us, so we go to said friend's house. My friend uses his key to the guy's place to get in, and we go to pick up the guns. One of these was a loaded .357, holstered on the guy's nightstand. It wasn't left there to pick up, the guy was out of town for a couple days, being a truck driver. This was where the weapon was commonly kept.
Just answer this: Was this guy being irresponsible or not by leaving the gun on his nightstand?
Yes or no, no straw men, no accusations of my anti-gun tendancies. If yes, fine, I bow out, and we disagree. If no, then tell me why you think this guy isn't responsible. Then tell me how this is any different than the behavior of the person in this case.
Hand_Rifle_Guy
New member
Irresponsible? No.
Key + permission of access = informed consent = no crime.
How in heck do you get irresponsible out of that? How is this an unsecured firearm? I would presume that you and your buddy are trustworthy non-criminals. If you and your friend had subsequently had a severe brain malfunction, and gone to the mall instead of the range to shoot moving instead of static targets, I STILL fail to see how leaving a loaded revolver lying around behind a LOCKED DOOR would in any way make your out-of-town friend responsible for your reprehensible actions. Even permissable access is not going to FORCE you go out and commit murder.
Do you think loaded guns that are unattended are capable of exerting external mind control? Best not let the gubmint hear about that. They're liable to deny you your gun rights on mental deficeincy grounds.
Leaving a gun around loaded and accessible does not equate to making any given set of circumstances more inherently dangerous to the world at large. If you insist on thinking that way, I suggest you are causing yourself a lot of unneccessary stress.
Sell your guns. Better yet, turn them in to be destroyed, and move to England or Australia. You'll sleep better, and get less ulcers.
Key + permission of access = informed consent = no crime.
How in heck do you get irresponsible out of that? How is this an unsecured firearm? I would presume that you and your buddy are trustworthy non-criminals. If you and your friend had subsequently had a severe brain malfunction, and gone to the mall instead of the range to shoot moving instead of static targets, I STILL fail to see how leaving a loaded revolver lying around behind a LOCKED DOOR would in any way make your out-of-town friend responsible for your reprehensible actions. Even permissable access is not going to FORCE you go out and commit murder.
Do you think loaded guns that are unattended are capable of exerting external mind control? Best not let the gubmint hear about that. They're liable to deny you your gun rights on mental deficeincy grounds.
Leaving a gun around loaded and accessible does not equate to making any given set of circumstances more inherently dangerous to the world at large. If you insist on thinking that way, I suggest you are causing yourself a lot of unneccessary stress.
Sell your guns. Better yet, turn them in to be destroyed, and move to England or Australia. You'll sleep better, and get less ulcers.
(Redacted for foul and insulting language--DMG)
The question was a simple yes or no, didn't require your lengthy response, and didn't require your attitude, Hand_Rifle_Guy. Kevinch's reply was at least civil.
I don't leave my weapons unsecured if they're not in my immediate control. Ever.
Anybody who can't understand that reasoning is not going to be convinced otherwise, so I'm not going to try. I'm also not going to shed a tear for any idiot who makes his weapon this easy to steal and then gets screwed over because of it. FACT: You're liable for that weapon. Period. If the concept of responsible ownership doesn't work for anyone, here, I think the concept of CYA should at least be in your mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as I'm getting down to HRG's level, here, let me point out the stupidity of the above: NONE OF THIS INANE RANT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION.
You're an idiot. The question was whether that firearm should have been left unattended, loaded, on a night stand while the guy was out of town. The only part you addressed was the part explaining how I found said gun, which is background that's irrellevant to the question.
Brian,
I've come the conclusion that you are a troll. You call arguments a logical fallacy (straw man) when they do not fit the definition of that fallacy (they were in fact in the same vein and as strong if not stronger than previously stated arguments). You do not get to exert any control over what someone's response may or may not entail. You also don't get the right to go calling people idiots. That, sir, IS a logical fallacy.
I'm not addressing anymore of your content. Even if you aren't a troll, you are indeed stubborn and not defending your argument very well. Its not worth anymore of anyone else's time.
I've come the conclusion that you are a troll. You call arguments a logical fallacy (straw man) when they do not fit the definition of that fallacy (they were in fact in the same vein and as strong if not stronger than previously stated arguments). You do not get to exert any control over what someone's response may or may not entail. You also don't get the right to go calling people idiots. That, sir, IS a logical fallacy.
I'm not addressing anymore of your content. Even if you aren't a troll, you are indeed stubborn and not defending your argument very well. Its not worth anymore of anyone else's time.
MJRW, I didn't start the personal attacks, Hand Rifle Guy did.
I don't think my position needs to be defended. It's common sense. I think the position that it's OK to leave a loaded weapon unsecured when you aren't in control of it needs to be defended. Nobody has done so.
All that I've seen are idiocies like:
What if someone stole your (insert: car, knife, baseball bat, etc.). Ok, what if they did? Does that mean it's OK not to secure your firearms b/c someone might be stupid enough to risk a B&E charge for stealing your baseball bat or kitchen knife? Or because someone may steal your car and kill someone with it? That's a straw man. The fact is, firearms are a hell of a lot more likely to be stolen for the purpose they were intended than any of the above items. Bats and kitchen knives are plenty easy to get without stealing them from someone. Cars aren't usually stolen with the intent to go run someone down with them.
I've also seen it stated that baseball bats and knives are more deadly than firearms. Excuse me? Which would you rather have in a fight? Thought so.
Some idiot even brought up the armchair cowboy argument that you can't use a secured gun to defend yourself. No ****. You can't use a gun you've left unsecured at home to defend yourself, either, so why don't you lock it up when you leave?
I've been accused of the same bad reasoning that leads to gun lock laws and requirements for safekeeping. The OPPOSITE is true. You and anyone on this site should know damned well that the intent of the gunlock laws are to put an additional financial burdon on obtaining firearms. The intent behind them is not safety, it is only to do damage to the firearms industry. And you know who supports the passage of these laws the strongest? Ever damned idiot who leaves his loaded gun under a pillow or a mattress and has his kid or the neighbor's kid killed with it.
These arguments and accusations are asinine to the extreme, and that's why they haven't been addressed directly.
Every gun lock law, and ever frivolous civil suit are the direct consequence of idiots with the attitude that "I'm not responsible for securing a deadly weapon. If someone steals it and kills someone with a gun I've left lying around my house, I'm not at fault."
It's true you're not the murderer, but you've damned sure been negligent.
Troll? I don't think so. I thought there was some intelligence on this board, which is why I come here, not to troll. I was honestly surprised that so many people didn't share the point of view that leaving a weapon unsecured when you're not at home only adds fuel to the antigun fires every time such a weapon is used or misused. I kept my reponses civil up until HRG's idiotic diatribe, because I was really curious as to why people here don't think they have any responsibility to secure their weapons.
Well, HRG, and you have cured me of that curiousity. You've convinced me that you're simply on the other side of the argument because of a knee-jerk reaction that anyone should suggest you act responsibly and not add fuel to the anti's fire.
I don't think my position needs to be defended. It's common sense. I think the position that it's OK to leave a loaded weapon unsecured when you aren't in control of it needs to be defended. Nobody has done so.
All that I've seen are idiocies like:
What if someone stole your (insert: car, knife, baseball bat, etc.). Ok, what if they did? Does that mean it's OK not to secure your firearms b/c someone might be stupid enough to risk a B&E charge for stealing your baseball bat or kitchen knife? Or because someone may steal your car and kill someone with it? That's a straw man. The fact is, firearms are a hell of a lot more likely to be stolen for the purpose they were intended than any of the above items. Bats and kitchen knives are plenty easy to get without stealing them from someone. Cars aren't usually stolen with the intent to go run someone down with them.
I've also seen it stated that baseball bats and knives are more deadly than firearms. Excuse me? Which would you rather have in a fight? Thought so.
Some idiot even brought up the armchair cowboy argument that you can't use a secured gun to defend yourself. No ****. You can't use a gun you've left unsecured at home to defend yourself, either, so why don't you lock it up when you leave?
I've been accused of the same bad reasoning that leads to gun lock laws and requirements for safekeeping. The OPPOSITE is true. You and anyone on this site should know damned well that the intent of the gunlock laws are to put an additional financial burdon on obtaining firearms. The intent behind them is not safety, it is only to do damage to the firearms industry. And you know who supports the passage of these laws the strongest? Ever damned idiot who leaves his loaded gun under a pillow or a mattress and has his kid or the neighbor's kid killed with it.
These arguments and accusations are asinine to the extreme, and that's why they haven't been addressed directly.
Every gun lock law, and ever frivolous civil suit are the direct consequence of idiots with the attitude that "I'm not responsible for securing a deadly weapon. If someone steals it and kills someone with a gun I've left lying around my house, I'm not at fault."
It's true you're not the murderer, but you've damned sure been negligent.
Troll? I don't think so. I thought there was some intelligence on this board, which is why I come here, not to troll. I was honestly surprised that so many people didn't share the point of view that leaving a weapon unsecured when you're not at home only adds fuel to the antigun fires every time such a weapon is used or misused. I kept my reponses civil up until HRG's idiotic diatribe, because I was really curious as to why people here don't think they have any responsibility to secure their weapons.
Well, HRG, and you have cured me of that curiousity. You've convinced me that you're simply on the other side of the argument because of a knee-jerk reaction that anyone should suggest you act responsibly and not add fuel to the anti's fire.
Jeff Thomas
New member
Brian, you're wrong, and you're acting rude.
I personally secure my firearms as you describe because I don't want to take a chance on contributing to such a tragedy, I want to hold on to them, and there are obvious legal issues. And yes, tragic accidents do put further pressure on the RKBA.
Leaving anything dangerous where a child or fool could touch it is ill advised ... includes car keys, knives, poison or firearms. Locked in your own home is secured. An interpretation otherwise is another example of illogic encouraged by the far left wing and trial lawyers ... but I repeat myself.
But if your bottom line is that you would support armed men (e.g. as LEO's) coming to my home to coerce me or anyone else to accept responsibility for the criminal actions of another because you don't like the way we store our firearms or any other private property ... then your position is just one more example of why the RKBA exists. To resist injustice and violent attack.
This case was a travesty, an example of injustice, and further evidence our system cannot be trusted.
Regards from TX
I personally secure my firearms as you describe because I don't want to take a chance on contributing to such a tragedy, I want to hold on to them, and there are obvious legal issues. And yes, tragic accidents do put further pressure on the RKBA.
Leaving anything dangerous where a child or fool could touch it is ill advised ... includes car keys, knives, poison or firearms. Locked in your own home is secured. An interpretation otherwise is another example of illogic encouraged by the far left wing and trial lawyers ... but I repeat myself.
But if your bottom line is that you would support armed men (e.g. as LEO's) coming to my home to coerce me or anyone else to accept responsibility for the criminal actions of another because you don't like the way we store our firearms or any other private property ... then your position is just one more example of why the RKBA exists. To resist injustice and violent attack.
This case was a travesty, an example of injustice, and further evidence our system cannot be trusted.
Regards from TX
Last edited:
Oops, Tam fighting is usually the better course.
Bushmaster's Side of the Tale
There are two sides to every story, and before we get too excited because we believe HCI's report on this...
Here's Bushmaster's side.
"Bushmaster Responds to Brady Groups False Claim of Victory
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est
http://www.bushmaster.com/
Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.
The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.
The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance company’s position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims’ families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.
We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims’ families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!
Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group’s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Bushmaster Firearms, Inc."
There are two sides to every story, and before we get too excited because we believe HCI's report on this...
Here's Bushmaster's side.
"Bushmaster Responds to Brady Groups False Claim of Victory
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est
http://www.bushmaster.com/
Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.
The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.
The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance company’s position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims’ families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.
We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims’ families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!
Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group’s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Bushmaster Firearms, Inc."
- Status