Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

B

Bucksnort1

New member
I just learned about this, yesterday. After the Aurora shooting, the parents of one of the deceased kids, sued gun and ammunition manufacturers. A judge threw out the case citing the, "Lawful Commerce In Arms Act". This act protects these manufacturers from the stupid things people do and I don't mean the parent. I'm talking about the shooter. Also, the parents were ordered to pay the legal fees of the manufacturers to the tune of $203,000. It was reduced from $258,000.

Now I ask you. Is their lawyer about the most ignorant and most incompetent lawyer ever? How could he/she not have known about the Act?
 
The lawyers were the Brady Center, but they weren't the actual plaintiffs. This next part is very important.

When it was good press, the Brady Center claimed it was their case.

However, the actual plaintiffs were Lonnie and Sandy Phillips. When the case was lost, the Phillips were left holding the bag.

Pretty awful, right? Well, don't shed a tear yet. Lonnie Phillips is the Operations Manager for the Brady Campaign, and Sandy is their Campaign Manager.

At this point, the Phillips are legally responsible for Lucky Gunner's legal fees. Rather than take it up with their employer, they've been running sob stories on HuffPo and the WSJ about how the evil gun industry is bankrupting them.

As we see too often lately, gun-control advocates are openly lying.
 
So the Brady Campaign still hasn't covered the legal costs?


Terrible how the evil gun industry is bankrupting them. PER A COURT ORDER!

Now I know that no one goes to court expecting to lose, but I think this is one of those times when stupid should hurt (financially). Certainly that is what they hoped the court would do to the gun makers.

Are they asking for donations, yet???
:mad:
 
I read about this also, but what Tom has posted, this is the first I learned of their positions with the Brady group.

I saw the HuffPo article, reached through a Yahoo search. Article was guilty of errors of omission in not mentioning the various associations, and extremely misleading at best, in retrospect.
 
One always assumes that when an organization takes public credit, and supplies legal council that there is some kind of understanding, or "gentleman's agreement" in place.

By refusing to pay their catspaw's expenses, it shows what kind of understanding gentlemen they actually are...

One more example of why it is foolish to take these people at their word. About anything.
 
They aren't willing to let reality temper their notion of how things are. In 2005 (pre-Heller) San Francisco put a proposition (Prop H) on the ballot to ban handguns. They KNEW it wouldn't stand up because it conflicted with state preemption laws. A nearly identical proposition had been previously overturned on those grounds. After it passed, the NRA took it to court, just like everyone knew they would. The NRA won on state premption grounds, just like everyone knew they would. Then SF appealed it. And lost, just like everyone knew they would.

San Francisco squandered nearly a million dollars, including $380,000 to the NRA for legal costs, on a proposition everyone knew would be overturned.

But at least they "made a statement".
 
The continuing saga will be to portray the collection efforts in the worst possible way.

"We lost our house and everything to the NRA who killed a child!"


It's propaganda - tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. Especially when the media is complicit with not revealing these people are paid employees of an anti gun group.

Considering they DID put themselves on the hook and WILL have to pay it, with legal counsel likely to the contrary, it's something they volunteered for and deserve. They willingly participated and if it bankrupts them it's all for the cause. Really no different than an ISIS bomber putting on the vest himself.

They knew what they were getting into, and that's the rebuttal that has to be broadcast as the answer to their charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top