General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Parents of Aurora shooting victim ordered to pay $200,000 in legal fees to ammo dealer
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/03/1408480/-Parents-of-Aurora-shooting-victim-ordered-to-pay-200-000-in-legal-fees-to-ammo-dealerThe parents of Jessica Ghawi, a 24-year-old woman gunned down by James Holmes in the 2012 Aurora theater massacre, tried to sue the online ammunition retailer who sold James Holmes the ammunition used in the attack. The case was dismissed before trial:
Thomas added that the case was dismissed before a trial could take place thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, a federal law passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005.
“What PLCAA does is it provides very broad, blanket immunity from civil lawsuits for both gun manufacturers and gun dealers,” she said. “This is one example of a situation where somebody has tried to address liability, to go after bad actions of a dealer or manufacturer and PLCAA kept them from being able to do so.”
Adding insult to extreme injury, a federal judge has issued an order that will likely bankrupt them:
The family of 24-year-old Jessica Ghawi, a victim in the 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, is faced with more than $200,000 in legal costs after a federal judge ordered them to pay attorney’s fees for four ammunition dealers the family attempted to sue.
“They have taken our daughter, and now they want to take our worldly goods,” Lonnie Phillips told MSNBC’s Tamron Hall in a televised interview earlier this week. “I think that’s a little much.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Based on the thread responses I see here, I'm sure that if even half the posters I assume must belong to anti-gun groups (it can't all be just talk, can it?) Kick in a few bucks, then these folks shouldn't have a problem. Maybe the Brady campaign will chip in too.
No really.
Know the law.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Hillary voted against it.
So Hillary is not the only one who has ever made a voting mistake.
Now, no matter how egregious the gun-related injury, parents will be terrified to sue the seller or manufacturer.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)not Federal law that was used here, but facts do not seem to matter.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)the Colorado judge ruled against the parents. The PCLAA had overturned the Colorado law that would have allowed them to sue.
From the OP:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/03/1408480/-Parents-of-Aurora-shooting-victim-ordered-to-pay-200-000-in-legal-fees-to-ammo-dealer
Thomas added that the case was dismissed before a trial could take place thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, a federal law passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005.
“What PLCAA does is it provides very broad, blanket immunity from civil lawsuits for both gun manufacturers and gun dealers,” she said. “This is one example of a situation where somebody has tried to address liability, to go after bad actions of a dealer or manufacturer and PLCAA kept them from being able to do so.”
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That states the Colorado law that the case was dropped under. It has been posted here before.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Whether it impacted this case, as the article in the OP indicates, or not, it struck down liability laws in all the states -- laws that affect all other manufacturers and sellers and to which gun manufacturers and dealers shouldn't get a special exception.
On edit: I don't think Bernie, or any candidate, needs to be perfect to be worthy of our support. But I think his positions on gun control, which might have been okay for Vermont, are not the best for a U.S. President. And I hope he will reconsider them.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/Family-to-Pay-Price-for-Trying-to-Sue-Ammo-Dealers-320224111.html
Thomas added that the case was dismissed before a trial could take place thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, a federal law passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005.
“What PLCAA does is it provides very broad, blanket immunity from civil lawsuits for both gun manufacturers and gun dealers,” she said. “This is one example of a situation where somebody has tried to address liability, to go after bad actions of a dealer or manufacturer and PLCAA kept them from being able to do so.”
The law makes the gun industry stand out from other industries, said Deep Gulasekaram, a second amendment expert and law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law.
“It is certainly odd and unique,” he said. “There are very few, if any, other industries that have this sort of blanket shield.”
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Other manufacturers. If SLAPP suits were not being filed and the legal system being abused to try and bankrupt firearms manufacturers, the law would not be needed.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)that affect other manufacturers.
branford
(4,462 posts)If a firearm is actually defective, or the manufacture does not follow applicable law, the PLCAA provides no immunity.
The law simply safeguards the manufacturer of a highly regulated (and constitutionally-protected) product who follows the law from being sued when their product works as designed but used criminally by a third-party, and punishes (via legal fees) parties that attempt to abuse the judicial system for political purposes.
Firearm manufacturers are also not the only industry that has received such protections. (See, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and General Aviation Revitalization Act).
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)"protections."
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/Family-to-Pay-Price-for-Trying-to-Sue-Ammo-Dealers-320224111.html
“What PLCAA does is it provides very broad, blanket immunity from civil lawsuits for both gun manufacturers and gun dealers,” she said. “This is one example of a situation where somebody has tried to address liability, to go after bad actions of a dealer or manufacturer and PLCAA kept them from being able to do so.”
The law makes the gun industry stand out from other industries, said Deep Gulasekaram, a second amendment expert and law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law.
“It is certainly odd and unique,” he said. “There are very few, if any, other industries that have this sort of blanket shield.”
branford
(4,462 posts)Moreover, although you may not see any value in firearms, the Founding Fathers and a great many other Americans hold a decidedly different view.
As to the contention that “There are very few, if any, other industries that have this sort of blanket shield,” I would respond that there similarly are very few, if any, other products explicitly protected as part of an enumerated right under the constitution where parties have consistently attempted back-door bans by commencing frivolous lawsuits for criminal misuse of the product.
As with many others here on DU, you seem to know little, and apparently care even less about, established product liability law, the legal contours and history of the PLCAA, the effects of SLAPP and other nuisance lawsuits, separation of powers, the scathing opinion by the court concerning these plaintiffs' claims, etc. These threads are simply means to vent about firearms, a product many on DU clearly despise, regardless of the actual law or policy at issue.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)But my first reaction is that planes are necessary in a way that personal guns are not.
Obviously, unlike some here, I'm not a big fan of the NRA or the Second Amendment. But neither are most of Bernie's supporters. Unfortunately, some have been tying themselves in knots here trying to justify positions they'd otherwise never support.
But unlike them, I don't think Bernie has to be a "perfect" progressive to deserve support. And I think his positions on gun control should be re-considered.
branford
(4,462 posts)and given that he comes from a largely rural state, with very low crime and virtually no firearm regulation, his votes concerning the Second Amendment and related matters are entirely unsurprising. He's also amply commented about his vote, and defends it to this day.
You certainly may believe that guns are unnecessary or worse, and don't deserve any legal protections, but that view was not shared by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution, nor presently by a great many other Americans.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/Family-to-Pay-Price-for-Trying-to-Sue-Ammo-Dealers-320224111.html
Thomas added that the case was dismissed before a trial could take place thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, a federal law passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005.
“What PLCAA does is it provides very broad, blanket immunity from civil lawsuits for both gun manufacturers and gun dealers,” she said. “This is one example of a situation where somebody has tried to address liability, to go after bad actions of a dealer or manufacturer and PLCAA kept them from being able to do so.”
The law makes the gun industry stand out from other industries, said Deep Gulasekaram, a second amendment expert and law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law.
“It is certainly odd and unique,” he said. “There are very few, if any, other industries that have this sort of blanket shield.”
branford
(4,462 posts)Would you kindly explain how as a legal matter under established principles of product liability law that the defendants were liable for the criminal misuse of legal products which operated as designed and sold in accordance with applicable law.
Citing the basic claims in the complaint or complaining about guns does not constitute a persuasive, no less winning, legal argument.
I'm always amused by the armchair-lawyering on DU, particularly in any discussion even remotely relating to firearms.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)I am asking that Bernie's progressive, pro-gun-control supporters, think twice before they try to rationalize gun policies that they would never find acceptable if Clinton or O'Malley supported them.
Bernie doesn't have to be perfect on every issue to be vote-worthy. And he won't be a lesser person if he decides to change his mind on the issue of gun control.
branford
(4,462 posts)I agree that he faces a double standard that has not been applied to Clinton. Politics is hardball.
I'm a very liberal NYC attorney, do not own weapons, and my defense of the Constitution simply does not skip over one of the Amendments. If you cannot argue with people like me about gun rights and legal policy, how do you expect to change the hearts and minds of the larger majority who owns guns and/or are far more conservative on this and other issues?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)who support Bernie. They're the ones I'm directing this to.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)They tried to sue the ammo dealers.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Many posters here have said that they will never vote for Hillary because of a single vote: her vote for the IWR, a vote for which she has expressed regret.
And yet these posters are happy to support a progressive who has opposed key gun control measures, even though they don't agree with his position. And some of them twist themselves in knots rather than acknowledge that his gun control positions -- while okay for Vermont -- might not be the best for the U.S.
It seems inconsistent to me. I don't expect any candidate or office holder to be perfect. I just wish Bernie would reevaluate his position on gun control, as Hillary has re-considered her vote on Iraq.
I'd rather have a leader acknowledge a mistake, or a change-of-heart -- or even "flip-flop" -- than rigidly hang on to the wrong position on an issue.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)I had a baby in 2001, and I read enough on no sleep in between feeds and diaper changes to know that the case for war was BS. She, a senator with staff and Intel briefings and connections galore got hoodwinked? If one actually believes that it might put her in a poorer light than a cynical read of her motives! I'd almost rather think her malicious than incompetent.
A better comparison to Sanders' vote would be her votes to protect the telecoms from privacy suits or the banks. Actually that's a much better comparison: the banks fund her, the war lobby got her vote while funding Republicans.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)all voted for the IWR because they didn't have access to the top-secret briefings he did as a member of the Armed Services Committee. They decided to trust Colin Powell, who was a trusted figure at the time. And that was their mistake. But many forget that at one time Colin Powell was viewed as an independent, a person above politics, and he was actually wooed by the Democrats as a possible Presidential candidate. The mistake that Clinton, Biden, and Kerry made was understandable in that context.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I just love how you characterize us as less than liberal for supporting Senator Sanders while you continue to defend a war hawk.
But you're still claiming you're not a Hillary supporter, right?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)If a company makes a knife, and some guy uses that knife to kill his wife, should the wife's family be able to sue the company who made the knife? Should they be able to sue the store that sold the guy the knife?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)At least that's what I see when I read that post.
Turbineguy
(37,364 posts)are a protected class in a republican paradise.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)they went ahead anyway knowing they would lose. They stated so on Rachael's show. They were on the Brady centers board. You do not sue a third party for criminal misuse of a legal product. This is the same as suing Ford for someone who steals your car and runs a person over.
the PLCAA had nothing to do with this as it was settled under Colorado law.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Maybe people should pay a bit more often when they bring about bullshit lawsuits.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)manufacturers of other dangerous products don't? Not all gun dealers are careless about whom they sell guns to; let them be the ones who stay in business.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you don't need a background check to buy ammo and they had no legal way of checking on Holmes even if they wanted to.
They broke no laws. They were not careless.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)The thing is, most people will not sue General motors if a speeding car kills their loved ones. They realize GM is not at fault.
If the brake petal was defective, GM can be sued.
Legal gun dealers get sued before this law was in place in an attempt to put them out of business. Now they have protections. If a gun is faulty, they can be sued, or if they don't follow a legal background check. If they sell a gun legally, they have protections. If there was a rash of people suing GM every time there was a fatal car crash (where the car was not defective), you would quickly see a similar law protecting car manufactures.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)This must feel like adding insult to injury. But it was a foolish suit. They knew they would lose, and they ew the law would require them to pay legal fees.
Don't do stupid things.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)I'm glad the Colorado law protected them the stores from the Brady Centers cynical exploration of these parents.
From their interview with Madow it does appear they knew the law, knew it would be unsuccessful, and knew they would be held financially accountable. This was a cynical ploy to martyr the parents for political purposes by the Brady Center.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Brady Center funded it.
If the Brady Center had any integrity it would pay the bill it caused.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:32 AM - Edit history (1)
They knew they would lose, they intended to be hit hard with the def. lawyers fees, and they knew they wouldn't pay in order to bring attention to the law that prevents the Brady Center from trying to sue small companies out of existence.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)and bankrupt the parents for more publicity.
It seems the parents are all to eager to play along at every step, so they must be ok with that strategy.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Filing frivolous lawsuits should be deterred. The situation is unfortunate, but allowing people to sue gun and ammo manufacturers would essentially shut down the industry. And that would be unconstitutional.
branford
(4,462 posts)If gun control proponents did not previously adopt a concerted strategy to try to enact back-door gun control by filing frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt the firearms industry with claims otherwise frivolous under established product liability law, the PLCAA and state analogs would never have been needed, and the plaintiffs would likely not have to pay the defendants' legal fees. However, the plaintiffs were employed by Brady, explicitly knew their suit was meritless and that failure would result in an award of legal fees, and are now trying to use emotional blackmail as a political and fundraising tool. If Brady has a shred of decency, they would pay the fees.
I would also note that firearms manufacturers are not the only industry that has received special protections due to abusive lawsuits and similar circumstances. (See, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and General Aviation Revitalization Act).
Prism
(5,815 posts)Paraphrasing, because I don't have the ruling handy, but the judge's attitude was basically, "The gun control organization should pay these legal fees for the parents, because idiot lawyers who knew this suit had no chance pressed a case 100% guaranteed to be dismissed."
In other words, this result was known from the outset, and the advocacy group should immediately foot the bill. If they leave the parents to pay for this, they are monumental assholes.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)But when you push a lawsuit for advocacy reasons, you shouldn't leave a victim's family to twist in the wind.
It was known the lawsuit would fail. It was known the plaintiffs would be on the hook for the legal fees. The law was absolutely crystal clear here. No mystery at all. No chance of it moving even an inch forward.
They need to step up and pay the fees on behalf of the family they were advocating through.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The off-hand legal description for these kinds of suits is SLAPP Suit. Usually employed by real estate specs and developers.
sarisataka
(18,752 posts)who filed the suit with the assistance of their employer knew exactly the risks:
Parents: Yes.
You decided to do it anyway?
Parents: Of course.
***
Parents: "We've been accused of standing on our daughters grave for our own agenda, and the answer to that is yes, we are."
I have sympathy for their loss but I will not feel sorry for any finacial loss from cynically using their daughter's death
valerief
(53,235 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)and abuse the courts for political advocacy, the "victims" are the defendants.
The courts did not victimize the plaintiffs. At best, Brady took advantage of them, at worst (and note that the plaintiffs were officers and employees of Brady), they were very cynically attempting to use the courts for legally meritless political gain, and the court has refused to accommodate their emotional blackmail.
