Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

You are welcome DaleA! Reading that article made me feel a little better too. One judge who knows the law and is bound by it, whatever his personal proclivities.

Now I'm waiting for Walgreens, CVS, and other major pharmacy chains to sue the Mexican government. Again, I self-censor lest I go over the line.

44 AMP you are rational and reasonable and know what words mean. I hope you are correct about dismissal but not all judges are rational, and don't get me started on juries, I've been on one and it was an eye-opener.
 
44 AMP said:
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.
Click to expand...
Under the circumstances, it seems to me the aggrieved parents should be suing the U.S. government for "negligently" approving the kid's background check. Might as well also sue the U.S. Congress for enacting the laws that allowed him to purchase the firearm -- and sue the President (whoever was in office at the time, or maybe just the Office of the President) for having signed the bill that created the law.

Once you start down a path of silliness, who can tell where, when, or if the silliness will end?
 
IF you are within the boundaries of existing law, you are not being negligent, illegal, or in any way wrong.

If you feel the law doesn't go far enough, lobby Congress and try to get the law changed to what YOU think it should be. That's the representative part of representative government.

Always remember that whether a case is won, lost, or even tossed out and not heard, the lawyers still get paid!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top