Brady Campaign encourages victim's parents to sue ammo supplier

[jimpeel]

The Brady Campaign is now encouraging the parents of one of the Aurora theater shooting victims to assuage their grief by suing BulkAmmo.com, BulletProofBodyArmorHQ.com, sportmansguide.com and BTP Arms for selling the shooter the ammo and other goods he used in the attack.

READ THE FILING HERE

They state that the suppliers were "reckless" in their selling a legal commodity to a buyer of that commodity. They state that it was negligent and unlawful for them to sell the ammo and other goods to what they term a "patently dangerous homicidal man." How the sellers were to know this fact is not stated other than the plaintiffs claim it was a "foreseeable risk."

It is a "foreseeable risk" selling a car to a person who "may" drive drunk; because there are stories in the news every day about persons doing so. So is it the duty of the seller of a car to vet the buyer through whatever means to ascertain they are not a habitual drunk?

This case will go nowhere but it will take up valuable court time and inconvenience the owners of these companies and cost them money that they will hopefully recoup from the plaintiffs. Of course, at the urging of the Brady Campaign, the parents will be victimized a second time if they have to pay the costs of this case.

SOURCE

The parents of Jessica Ghawi, who was killed in the 2012 Aurora theater shootings, filed a lawsuit in Arapahoe County District Court on Tuesday ...

The lawsuit was filed by the nationally recognized law firm Arnold & Porter LLP's Denver office in conjunction with the Washington D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The companies named in the litigation are scattered in Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Arizona.

Foxnews had a bit on this where they state that this case is likely to go nowhere because of proximate cause and the Brady Campaign having no standing in this case.

VIDEO LINK

 

[longknife12]

Sad it happened. The antis will pull all stops to ride publicity and disrupt.
They will never give up, it is a obsession to them.
Dan

 

[Davey]

Has anyone even been found guilty yet?

If not how can anyone say the suspect in custody actually committed the crime?

 

[Davey]

Hoping this is good for another tick in in the loss column just like their suit against ArmsList.com

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Wasn't there a case against the ammunition industry a few years ago, that cost the industry big bucks and was finally decided completely in favor of the ammo makers?

This is a case in which the judge should penalize the plaintiffs and the plaintiff's attorneys for filing a frivolous lawsuit. There is no legitimate claim here and the attorneys know it, but they are happy to clog up the court system with this nonsense as long as they have a client who is willing to pay them to use the courts for political grandstanding.

 

[jimpeel]

As I stated before, the parents of this girl are being used and they will be victimized again if they have to pay for this lawsuit. In the meantime, the Brady Campaign will be off the hook and going down the road whistling.

The lawyers are handling this pro bono. Hopefully they will be held culpable if this is decided as being a frivolous case (which it is).

 

[Tom Servo]

They tried something very similar with Armslist not too long ago. The Illinois District Court dismissed it with prejudice, saying,

[T]he Court finds that the criminal conduct of third-parties who misuse Defendant's website to illegally sell and buy firearms is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the website's design. (…) The Court finds that Defendant owes no duty to the general public to operate its website to control private users' sale of handguns.

The decision is here. Replace "firearms" with "ammunition," and it works the same.

 

[scpapa]

I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, so what does it mean when

The Illinois District Court dismissed it with prejudice

?

Rick

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, so what does it mean when

The Illinois District Court dismissed it with prejudice

?

It means that the court decided that the complaint (the document describing the basis for the suit and filed with the court to start the suit) does not state a legally cognizable claim for relief and that the defects can't be fixed. So the court threw the case out of court; it can't be refiled. The trial court's order would be a "final judgment" and therefore appealable.

If the trial court decided that the complaint was salvageable, it would have dismissed "with leave to amend." If that had happened, the plaintiffs could have modified the complaint and re-filed. Such an order would not be a "final judgment" and would therefore not be appealable.

 

[DT Guy]

Frank, is there any legal liability for filing a suit found to be without merit?


Larry

 

[zukiphile]

There are sanctions for frivolous filings, but courts are generally reluctant to impose them. The standard isn't just that the claim lack merit, but that a good faith argument or extension of existing law isn't present.

It is a high threshold.

 

[jeager106]

It's too bad and very sad that the anti-gun types seem to never search for the root cause of random mass murder by firearm.
Most all the actors in this kind of violence have severe mental issues, most often paranoid skizophrenia. Some of these murderers have been diagnosed, may have gone off meds, or heard "voices" that order them to committ such horrendous acts.
Seriously mentally ill are not put into a "don't sell a gun to" data base unless they have been adjuticated mentally deficient by a court, often only after they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital.
If a seriously mentally ill person voluntarily committs then there is no government record, ergo, not entered into a national data base.
This anti-gun movement is politically motivated & not for the safety of the general public.
Isn't it silly that the liberals never lobby to restrict the sale of automobiles
to prevent murder by drunk driver?
It took years for the laws & courts to be motivated sufficiently to make drunk driving a serious offense.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

It's not politically correct to go after the mentally incompetent. Besides, the Bradys and their ilk are convinced that no one should have access to firearms in any event.

This, like the suit against Armslist, is an attempt to achieve their disarmament ends by making the cost of doing business greater for firearms and ammunition manufacturers and dealers. And of course, if they countersue, they're heartlessly suing poor bereaved parents/spouses, etc.

 

[jimpeel]

They need to counter-sue the Brady Campaign which is the driving force behind this lawsuit. Leave the parents, who are being used in the most egregious way, alone. They have suffered enough and the Brady Campaign is trying to profit from their grief -- just like they have done in every other shooting.

 

[Tom Servo]

It's too bad and very sad that the anti-gun types seem to never search for the root cause of random mass murder by firearm.

They couldn't care less about that. In fact, their actions suggest they really don't care about reducing gun violence at all. If they did, they'd support us when we call for better enforcement of existing laws.

Make no mistake: their agenda is about scoring points in the public eye. That's it.

 

[jimpeel]

The goal is total disarmament of the people and unbridled government.

 

[KyJim]

Traditionally, these types of lawsuits are handled by plaintiffs' attorneys who are paid on a contingency basis. They get paid a percentage of any award or settlement and zero if they lose. This is an economic regulator that acts as a check against unmerited suits. When an organization is driven by political ideology to support a suit and the attorneys are working without payment, that economic regulator is not present. As zukiphile pointed out, a court can assess fees for frivolous suits but this is seldom done.

 

[JimDandy]

Can the people being sued recover their costs from the other side though? It's going to cost the ammo industry money to defend themselves. When/if they prevail, the court may not decide the case was frivolous for punitive fees, but normal court costs?

 

[zukiphile]

Court costs aren't likely to be all that significant. Even if one moves to have some discovery costs taxed as court costs, they won't be the huge part of the bill.

Rule 11 sanctions allow for the award of some reasonable attorneys fees, but that is always an uphill sort of fight too. The American rule isn't ordinarily "loser pays", the idea being that free access to remedy through the courts is to be preserved, and that a "loser pays" rule will discourage parties of modest means.

The impediments to getting sanctions will reflect that view.

 

[44 AMP]

Seriously mentally ill are not put into a "don't sell a gun to" data base unless they have been adjuticated mentally deficient by a court,

And, I believe, rightly so. The base issue is the protection of their, and our rights. There are people that "everybody knows" are crazy, and of course, everybody feels those people shouldn't be able to buy a gun.

But the "crazy" people that "everybody knows" can be anything from real deluded dangerous people to a harmless oddball that just happens to be disliked.

The system of having to go through a hearing before being declared a prohibited person (due to mental issues) allows for evidence from both sides, and is, essentially the only fair thing to do.

The problem with it is that, like any legal proceeding, it is cumbersome, and requires effort and possibly expense, and then there's also the social stigma involved.

So what we have is a system that could do its job, but is handicapped by people's reluctance to use it. Further complicating matters are all the cases where, at the time, the person being judged is NOT a credible threat.

The court can rule the person is not a threat, and be perfectly correct. Then a month of three later they can snap and go on a rampage. Or they can live the next 80 years and never harm anyone. It's not an easy call.

But without the checks of the court system, we are all essentially at the mercy of both well intentioned do gooders, and the petty spiteful busy bodies who think they know what's best for the rest of mankind. Mob rule, in essence.

I have no doubt the Brady bunch got the parents to sue by telling them about the deep pockets of the "gun industry". And I will admit, the way they look at it, taking the TOTAL of gun and gun related sales does make an impressive dollar figure.

But the "huge" gun industry that does such a "huge" business is not one company, or even three, it is dozens of companies, if not more, only a handful of which would be considered major businesses by either sales or employee count.

What amazes me is how the maker of a legal product, sold in a legal manner, possibly several times, can be morally held responsible (let alone legally responsible) for an illegal act by a third (or 15th) party?

Yes, there are specific cases where responsibility might attach to the manufacturer, but I don't see it here, or with any gun/ammo related case. They claim "reckless" marketing, or some other meaningless social sound byte.

When all applicable Federal, state, and local laws are followed in the sale and distribution of a product, I don't see the maker being responsible for the criminal use of such by and end user. And so far, the courts have generally agreed.

These suits are brought NOT for justice, but to make news, keep a political and social agenda in on everyone's mind, make trouble and expense for the "gun industry", and maybe, just maybe be a lottery win for some lawyers and victim's families.

This isn't a case where a truck exploded (after being rigged by some helpful news people) claiming the design was defective, the big evil company knew it, and did nothing etc., This isn't even remotely close.

But some of those helpful people are trying to treat it the same way...