Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

[44 AMP]

I was there, too. And you are correct, the 94 elections were a political disaster for the Democratic party. (and, also a handful of Republicans).

The Democratic party lost majority control of Congress, for the first time in 40 years. The mainstream media told us it was because of the Republican "Contract with America".

Bill Clinton (then President) told his fellow Dems (in private) that it was because they pushed the AWB (gun control). And note that no gun control bills since have been pushed in an election year. Till now.

The 94AWB was passed in the summer, and really ticked off a lot of people. And a lot of those people were still ticked off that November, and they voted out virtually every congressman who supported that bill and was up for election that year, Dem AND Rep.

Having learned their lesson, by getting burned, Politicians generally try to avoid really divisive issues (and being caught on the record about them) during election years. Especially being caught on the record about them.

Look what happened to presidential candidate hopeful "Beto" when, at the Dem candidate debates he announced "Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15!" It took about two days for his support to disappear and he was forced to withdraw from national politics shortly after.

This time around, it may be different. At least as far as the political theater goes. The gun law proposals under discussion this time are not entirely and exclusively focused on further restrictive gun control measures. There are some in the mix, to be sure, but there are other things as well.

The usual suspects are doing their usual foaming at the mouth screaming BAN BAN BAN!!! but they don't seem to be getting their usual amount of traction this time, despite the real outrage of the people over the mass murder of children, there seem to be enough people willing to look at something other than gun bans as possible solutions to get them on the table for discussion.

Things are under discussion in Congress. Nothing has yet been agreed to, or submitted for voting. IF there is a bill passed, and a law created, that is something real. Until then, its all "sound and thunder signifying nothing"....

we'll see how that affects the political power structure in November, this year.

 

[JohnKSa]

The problem is that the gun-ban people are not bargaining in good faith, their goal is not to minimize the number of dead or injured, their goal is civilian disarmament. We err when we lose sight of that.

This is true, but it's of limited usefulness.

The antis use these things to try to further their agenda, but the problem is that narrative plays well with the general public. So even knowing WHY the antis immediately go into high gear after a mass shooting doesn't help because it doesn't change the fact that the general public will accept what they say and that often provides sufficient support to pass legislation.

It's a very effective technique and I don't know there's a good way to counter it. An educated general population would help, but that's an even harder problem to solve.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't know a good way to counter their influence, either, what I see is fanatics dancing in, and painting themselves with the blood of innocent murder victims in order to get what they want, and convincing the undecided its the necessary thing to do, on one side, and on the other side, I see people who's only real argument is "WE DIDN'T DO IT, all we want is to be left alone."

I am more than sick and tired of the double standard where we constantly told not to blame all members of a group because of the criminal acts of a few, and yet they turn around and do exactly that to gun owners.

 

[rickyrick]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-gun-shops-report-increased-sales-ahead-of-state-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/?amp=1
I read an article that millions of high capacity magazines are pouring into Washington state ahead of an upcoming ban.

“There are millions of magazines brought into WA in anticipation of ban, at the end of the day there will be more magazines here than a decade worth of normal sales,” he said.

Seems like threats of gun and accessories bans tend to put more of the undesirable items into public hands; as has been mentioned on this forum in many posts.

Things like this will also turn people’s heirs into accidental criminals.

 

[44 AMP]

yeah, nothing says violent criminal like grandpa's spring loaded metal (or plastic) box...

Seems like threats of gun and accessories bans tend to put more of the undesirable items into public hands;...

for the record, I find guns and accessories to be desirable things...

and I think the term you're looking for is "forbidden fruit".

Forbid people something they previously enjoyed, and particularly when the reason is just because you can, and you make the forbidden thing even more desirable for many.

 

[cdoc42]

We have a representative government – a Republic – not a “democracy” that even our elected legislative leaders fail to openly advise.
State Congressional House and Senate representative(s) were chosen by the majority of either public party voting at that time. So, realistically, he/she should advocate for issues reflective of the party philosophy at that time, assuming that is how the majority in his/her district believes.

The job of the elected official becomes blurred after the election by the reasonable position postured that he/she now must represent “all” constituents in the district, political party notwithstanding, but one must hope the representative has lost his/her party affiliation and now extends interest and analysis to whatever is best for both party affiliations in the district.

Which brings us to the question: how does he/she know how those he/she represents really feel about the variety of issues that surface after an election?

We have a potential answer with the technology that I’m using now. Rather than “writing” or “telephoning” one’s elected officials, every elected official should have a website that affords the opportunity to constituents to share their views of whatever issue is at hand. Essentially transfer the discussions from “Facebook,” “Twitter” and the rest of the multi-opinion opportunity gathering websites to the local representatives so they can vote the way their constituents demand.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We have a potential answer with the technology that I’m using now. Rather than “writing” or “telephoning” one’s elected officials, every elected official should have a website that affords the opportunity to constituents to share their views of whatever issue is at hand. Essentially transfer the discussions from “Facebook,” “Twitter” and the rest of the multi-opinion opportunity gathering websites to the local representatives so they can vote the way their constituents demand.

The problem with web sites is that they can be spoofed by "bots" -- just like facebook and Twitter. Every elected representative -- state and federal -- has a web site, and every one of their web sites has a "Contact [Name]" link on it. It's easy to let your representatives know what you're thinking. Just fill in the blanks and click "Submit."

 

[44 AMP]

It's easy to let your representatives know what you're thinking. Just fill in the blanks and click "Submit."

Yes, its easy, today. SO easy that I think it has cost us most of the weight of our individual opinions.

Back in "prehistoric times" when actual letters, handwritten or typed on paper and mailed got to Congressmen (and newspaper editors) they carried a bit of weight. I've heard it referred to as the 10 to 1 rule.

For every letter they got on a issue, the rough rule was that there were probably 10 or more people who felt the same way (and WOULD VOTE) but wouldn't take the time, effort and cost to actually write and mail a letter.

Today, its so easy, can be as simple as a couple of keystrokes or mouse clicks. and, within a few minutes, thousands of people can express their opinions....from all over the world....

and, as noted automatic programs (bots) can flood messages and overwhelm the voices of real people....

can't be easy these days, being a lawmaker, who are you hearing, and how well can you tell if they are the people you're supposed to be listening to??

 

[cdoc42]

I'm still "prehistoric" in that I continue to send an "old-fashioned" letter when I have any issue that demands attention. Phone calls can't be proven easily, if at all. Emails can be ignored, claim to have been lost in spam, and although personally recapturable, any failure to keep a backup of your data can result in a loss.

These days, real letters are probably rare enough that potential respondents simply ignore them, which creates the need to resend the communication by certified mail, and return receipt requested.

 

[44 AMP]

Real letters can be tossed in the trash, too, but generally, some staffer (at least0 has to open them and read them to know what they say.

I think the next time I send them a letter, (especially to the one that I met in person, face to face and they LIED to me...)

I think I'll start it out by asking why they didn't cash the $50,000 check I sent them in my last letter.....

and its ok, I'll void the check... at the end of the week......

fair is fair, right?

heard an interesting report about the aftermath of the shooting (car radio, yesterday) it seems that the parents of some of the survivors are now suing the estate of the shooter.

This is a new tactic, one I hadn't heard had been tried before. according to the report, they aren't suing for money, because the 18yr old killer didn't have any... what they are suing for is information.

The radio commentator made a good point about this. Victims (and surviving family members) DO NOT have access to information discovered by the investigation. ONLY the authorities do. And the victims are in the same boat as the rest of the public is, we can only get what information the authorities choose to release.

By bringing suit against the killer (in this case his estate since the killer is dead) it gives them legal standing to request and even subpoena information related to the shooting or the killer, that they otherwise could not get.

thoughts??

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The radio commentator made a good point about this. Victims (and surviving family members) DO NOT have access to information discovered by the investigation. ONLY the authorities do. And the victims are in the same boat as the rest of the public is, we can only get what information the authorities choose to release.

By bringing suit against the killer (in this case his estate since the killer is dead) it gives them legal standing to request and even subpoena information related to the shooting or the killer, that they otherwise could not get.

thoughts??

Thoughts? Waste of time and energy.

As you noted, the authorities don't have to release the information to anyone. So the parents of the shooter don't know anything the rest of us don't know. A subpoena to the parents of the shooter can't force the authorities to release anything. The parents' response to such a subpoena is going to be "We don't have the information you are seeking." and that's the end of it.

The right answer is for the Texas state legislature to amend that law, and make it so that current, on-going investigations are not grandfathered.

 

[44 AMP]

Thoughts? Waste of time and energy.

As you noted, the authorities don't have to release the information to anyone.

I'm not so sure. Certainly what you describe can and does happen, however, I think there are other situations where the authorities do have to give their information to select other parties. When a court orders it.

Am not a lawyer and am just going based on my layman's understanding so if I'm completely off track, I hope some of the legal minds here will correct me.

Consider the principle of "discovery", where, as I understand it, the prosecution is required to share all the information then intend to use in court with the defense.

I believe that general principle is also applied in some degree to the parties involved in a lawsuit. (under whatever applicable laws exist)

The point made by the commentator I heard (who is a lawyer) was that being party to the suit, they can, through their attorneys request information from the authorities, or direct from the sources of the authorities information, in order to be able to determine its applicability to their case.

Not for public dissemination, but for their legal team's own use in their case. What was mentioned on the radio as things that MIGHT be germane, were things like the killer's personal history (including juvenile history) or the records of the gun maker and their advertising, etc. Things that as just the victims they aren't legally entitled to, but as plaintiff in a legal action, they could be.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm not so sure. Certainly what you describe can and does happen, however, I think there are other situations where the authorities do have to give their information to select other parties. When a court orders it.

Am not a lawyer and am just going based on my layman's understanding so if I'm completely off track, I hope some of the legal minds here will correct me.

I am responding to your statement that the parents of some of the victims are suing the estate of the shooter. The shooter was 18 years old, so he was an adult. His estate has essentially no assets, and it has no information other than what might be contained in any documents he might have left behind. If those documents are in the possession of the authorities (who are NOT parties to this lawsuit, based on your statement), then the shooter's estate has nothing to offer in response to a subpoena.

Frank Ettin or Spats McGee or one of the other attorneys around here might enlighten us further, but I don't see how a civil suit against the estate of a deceased would in any way compel the state of Texas or any jurisdiction like the City of Uvalde or the consolidated school district to release information.

 

[zukiphile]

The basic mechanism is an attorney's subpoena in a case, the same suboena mechanism used to get witnesses to appear.

The attorney files an action. To get the testimony or documents of a witness, the attorney issues a subpoena in that case. This alone doesn't compel the witness to testify or produce, and the subpoenaed party can object to the court stating why it shouldn't have to testify or produce.

If it's a governmental entity, they routinely ignore them, at least when they come from me. Then, I have to file a motion with the court demanding that the entity show cause why it should not be held in contempt. If the court sees no reason for the failure to produce or appear, he can issue an order requiring the entity to produce or appear.

 

[44 AMP]

ok, so once again, its some "sort of" valid information, mixed with speculation. ??


par for the course, these days?? nicht Wahr?

 

[DaleA]

I'm not sure if this is 'new' news or not. The Wall Street Journal published it as an update on 29 September 2022 but again, I'm not sure it really is new.

The families of three children who survived the mass shooting at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school are suing the school district, city, law enforcement and gun manufacturers in federal court.

It [the suit] alleges that Daniel Defense LLC, identified as the manufacturer of the gun used in the shooting, uses deceptive and reckless marketing to attract young, untrained adults. A representative for Daniel Defense didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit argues Daniel Defense and other gun-industry defendants “violated federal law by negligently entrusting their deadly weapons to the Uvalde school shooter.”

The bolding of some of the information is my doing, not in the WSJ piece, because I thought it was important/relevant/egregious.

The 'negligently entrusting' phrase I thought was particularly grating. To me it sparks visions of somebody going to the back door of the manufacturing facility and the company president handing out the gun saying 'go play with this for a while'.

I guess a law, like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is worthless if everyone just decides to ignore it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I think (and fervently hope) that lawsuit won't fly nearly as high or as far as the one against Remington post-Sandy Hook.

 

[BobCat45]

Good timing! I read an article on Sept 30 on ABC news, about a US judge dismissing a suit brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers. The headline is:

US judge dismisses Mexico lawsuit against gun manufacturers

and the article is at https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-judge-dismisses-mexico-lawsuit-gun-manufacturers-90799886

It says, in part, "Judge F. Dennis Saylor in Boston ruled Mexico’s claims did not overcome the broad protection provided to gun manufacturers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005."

So not everyone is ignoring it.

I agree with your take on the "negligently entrusting" phrase, and have to stop there lest I get too emotional.

Remember, they've been trying to chip away since at least 1968 (in my experience - I was not around for 1934) and while they've won some battles they have lost many, and I can say I have more guns, better guns, the right to carry a gun (or more) for self defense, and other things I never dreamed possible 30-40 years ago.

 

[44 AMP]

The lawsuit argues Daniel Defense and other gun-industry defendants “violated federal law by negligently entrusting their deadly weapons to the Uvalde school shooter.”

A lawsuit can argue or infer anything they want. The fact, and reality are often otherwise and we rely on the courts to toss out the total BS and rule against the untrue but more plausible.

By all accounts the killer legally bought the rifles "for his 18th birthday", and then went on his murder spree a week later...

Now, consider this, "legally purchased", means that he FOLLOWED and OBEYED ALL applicable laws. He bought them through an FFL dealer, He was of legal age. He had NO criminal record. He was not under any legal restrictions prohibiting his purchase or possession.

Beyond the obvious stupidity of the claim in general is the more subtle but still STUPID mistake of claiming Daniel Defense (the manufacturer) "negligently entrusted" anything to the Uvalde shooter to be....
First off, then only "entrusting" the maker did was to the distributor they sold their product to, and then that distrubtor sold it to the local FFL dealer, and that FFL dealer was the only one in the chain who had any awareness of or dealing with the buyer. AND that buyer was a completely legal purchaser, and a lawful owner, until he went on his murder rampage at the Uvalde school.

Until THAT POINT, he was totally legal and had the same rights every other citizen of the US with a clean record has.

This claim of negligence against the manufacturer is entire a fabrication bases on the completely flawd concept that the maker "knew or should have known" something that it was completely impossible for them to know.

I can see a judge allowing the suit, so that the plaintiffs do get "their day in court" but I cannot see how they have a chance in hell of winning a judgement in their favor, and I expect the judge to dismiss the case, with prejudice, so it cannot be filed again.

But, that's just me, in my own personal court of opinion...

 

[DaleA]

BobCat45---Thank you for posting the link to the Mexican lawsuit!

I've been particularly irritated with this since my state (Minnesota) felt compelled to chime in on the side of the Mexican government.

I hadn't heard it had been dismissed.

Does my heart good. Thanks.