Aurora Victim’s Parents Face Bankruptcy After Suing Online Ammo Dealers, Vow To Change Colorado Law
Source: Colorado Pols
Back in May, we took note of a particularly troubling development in the aftermath of the 2012 mass shootings at the Century Theater in Aurora. The parents of Jessica Ghawi, one of the theatergoers killed when James Holmes opened fire in a packed movie theater on July 20, 2012, are facing dire financial straits after their lawsuit against online ammunition and body armor dealers who sold Holmes items used in the Aurora shooting was dismissed.
Under a Colorado law passed as a Republican “backlash” against stricter gun control measures following the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, House Bill 00-1208, requires the immediate dismissal of any lawsuit brought against firearm or ammunition dealers, and further requires (using the term shall as opposed to may) that the judge order the plaintiffs in that lawsuit to pay the gun dealer’s legal fees. The problem in this case is that the suit filed by Lonnie and Sandy Phillips was not frivolous, investigating legitimate questions of liability arising from the online sale of ammunition and other dangerous products. Critically, the suit also sought no monetary damages–just a change in business practices by online gun and ammunition dealers.
Following another shooting incident at a theater in Louisiana last week, the Phillipses appeared on MSNBC’s News Nation with Tamron Hall, and disclosed that they now face bankruptcy over the $200,000 judgment against them. For all the publicity surrounding the Aurora shooting and trial underway now, the plight of the Phillips family has received very little press attention, and Hall expressed shock at learning the details of their case.
Read more: http://coloradopols.com/diary/74291/aurora-victims-parents-face-bankruptcy-after-suing-online-ammo-dealers-vow-to-change-colorado-law
Aurora shooting victim Jessica Ghawi.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)They lost and now it is time to pay up.
And why isn't the Brady Campaign or Bloomberg's group paying the tab?
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)
I honestly don't know what is worse... the ugliness of the primaries or the "guns above all else" defenders..
villager
(26,001 posts)Such posted tripe helps neuter sites like this, rendering them as void as possible as loci of actual change...
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I am only pointing out what the law states, not agreeing with it.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)TOTALLY.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)told them about the Colorado law. Maybe the law can be overturned on appeal.
Yes, the law sucks but their suit should not have been filed.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...then the lawyer engaged in malpractice and the parents should get it from the lawyer's insurer.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Doesn't provide "blanket immunity" but you know that. And yes, I would defend a law that protects a manufacturer from a lawsuit that challenges the use of a non-defective product.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)It explicitly does exempt gun manufacturers from full liability for defective products, namely they are immune from liability for the foreseeable misuse of their products. No other manufacturer has the immunity..
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Or, more accurately, you present two unrelated propositions. The law protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits that challenge the criminal misuse of their product. If a gun is defective you can sue, you can't sue because a gun is misused. You aren't seriously opining that a gun manufacturer should be liable to suit because someone shoots someone else are you? That's a pretty ridiculous position.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)If their products were not defective, they would not be liable under product liability law. But a product can be defective by the way it is marketed or if the way it is manufactured makes misuse more likely (like military assault rifles and 100-round magazines). And that is what the gun manufacturers got immunity from. They want to be able to market crazy shit to lunatics.
Telcontar
(660 posts)The intent wasn't to win so much as to drain the coffers of gun manufacturers and dealers with legal fees such they'd be forced into bankruptcy.
But I'm sure you know that and support the effort.
That's why this law is needed.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The gun manufacturers were seeking to block meritorious lawsuits, not frivolous ones.
Telcontar
(660 posts)Gun manufactures are still vulnerable to meritorious lawsuits for defective products.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Plus you could sue them back for malicious prosecution, in which you could seek punitive damages.
And no, gun manufacturers are not liable for all types of meritorious lawsuits for defective products. Only a narrow range of defects are litigable. The PLCAA made sure of that.
Telcontar
(660 posts)Defective - actual defects to the device - are liabilities.
Someone downing a few six-packs and plowing into a crowd of kids isn't a defect of the car.
It's because of people like you that protections are needed.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Metal-tipped lawn darts were perfectly legal toys but were sued out of existence because a few kids were impaled by them. It was foreseeable that such an unreasonably dangerous product would be misused this way. Hence, the manufacturer had liability. If gun manufacturers produce a military assault rifle and 100-round magazine that is designed to mow down massive amounts of people at once, it is an unreasonably dangerous product that is foreseeably going to be used by mass murderers.
Mass murderers don't need "protections from people like me." I need protection from mass murderers, and irresponsible gun manufacturers.
Telcontar
(660 posts)I'm comfortable with my position and am in the right side of history. It's nice being in the winning team.
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #112)
Post removed
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)That product liability case you cite involves the narrow product liability gun manufacturers still have under the PLCAA: where the gun misfires, i.e. when the gun does not fire when it is supposed to or fires when it is not supposed to, so long as none of those uses were criminal acts. The families of the Aurora and Sandy Hook victims are all blocked because the shootings were criminal acts, even if utterly foreseeable by the gun manufacturers.
irisblue
(32,980 posts)You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 28, 2015, 09:29 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "If you submit abusive or offensive comments when serving on a jury, your eligibility to serve on juries may be revoked, and the comment which caused the loss of eligibility may be displayed publicly on your Profile page."
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No need to cite RW BS.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: this is abusive non discussion clap trap
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's rude and imo a poor argument I think but not hidable.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)First, unlike lawn darts, guns are a constitutionally protected item which work exactly as intended. More importantly, third-party criminal misuse of a legal product normally vitiates any liability.
You also seem to believe that an item that functions as intended and designed, no less complies with numerous legal regulations, often including criminal background checks, is somehow defective because you simply don't like that function. Guns fire pieces of metal at very high velocities, and are useful in a variety of perfectly legal and appropriate contexts, including sport, hunting, self-defense, and pursuant to our Constitution, even as a means by which the People may ensure liberty when all else fails. There are hundreds of millions of guns and tens of millions of gun owners in the country, and despite some terrible images in the news and too much violent crime, criminal misuse of firearms still represents a statistically insignificant percentage of firearm use, and most of that is by people who already are barred from firearm ownership under current laws, two-thirds of deaths are suicides, and millions of firearms are used defensively to protect the innocent, generally without ever firing a shot.
It is beyond dispute that not too long ago the gun control movement, including many municipalities, adopted a concerted legal strategy to institute a back-door ban on all or most firearms by litigating claims against firearms manufacturers and dealers that were meritless under accepted product liability jurisprudence until these entities were effectively bankrupt. Unsurprisingly considering the strength of support for gun rights in the USA and the transparency of gun control tactics, the backlash was swift, certain and unequivocal, including the PLCAA and equivalent laws in a majority of the states.
Note also that manufacturer immunity due to frivolous claims or simply because of public policy concerns are not limited to the firearm industry, and apply to other areas such as vaccines and aviation (See, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and General Aviation Revitalization Act, respectively).
The PLCAA is not the only instance of stealth gun control backfiring spectacularly on its proponents. New Jersey's foolish attempt to ban all "dumb" firearms in the state in order to advance "smart gun" technologies has resulted in crippling that entire sphere of research and refusal of gun owners from across the country to even consider purchasing such a weapon.
If you or others believe that the civil immunity laws, the Second Amendment or anything else is unneeded or offensive, feel free to lobby for their repeal. It certainly is not impossible, as the California state immunity law was reversed by the legislature. However, despite events like Sandy Hook, no credible attempts have been made to systematically repeal immunity laws by our party, no less part of the Bill of Rights. The reason is astoundingly obvious. The popularity of gun rights has been steadily increasing, and attempts at gun control has have cost the party dearly in a number of elections. Universal background checks cannot pass in the Senate when supposedly there is a 90% approval for such a law, it would still fail in the House, and you have celebrities spokespeople and a pet billionaire who can easily outspend the NRA (and did in the CO recall elections to no avail). Feel good legislation concerning "assault rifles" and magazine limits not only failed as well, but amendments broadening gun rights such as concealed carry reciprocity actually garnered a majority of votes.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Readily foreseeable criminal misuse of an unreasonably dangerous product does not vitiate the liability of any manufacturer but a gun manufacturer.
branford
(4,462 posts)as part of an enumerated right in the federal Constitution and virtually all state constitutions, no less very heavily regulated at all levels, when working exactly as designed and intended, are all or virtually all "unreasonably dangerous" as a matter of law because of their potential criminal misuse by a staggeringly small percentage of individuals, two-thirds of which are suicides, and the vast majority by those who already cannot legally posses firearms, and despite their legitimate and widespread use in sport, hunting, self-defense and potential civil protection, and thus must be banned either directly or by effectively prohibiting their sale, transfer or manufacture by courts, rather than elected legislators and amendment to the Constitution?
If so (or anything even remotely close), as historical and current polls and elections clearly indicate, not only will such a viewpoint not be reflected in American popular opinion or legal jurisprudence for the foreseeable future, but it's this very attitude that makes laws like the PLCAA common and necessary with strong political support, including among many otherwise very liberal Democrats (and independent socialists like Bernie Sanders).
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)A military assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine like the Aurora shooter used has no business in civilian hands. It does not have "legitimate widespread use in hunting or self-defense." We have a standing army. We don't need untrained, unaccountable Rambos as our "potential civil protection." 
And no, guns in the U.S. cannot be described as "very heavily regulated at all levels." 
Your rhetoric has demonstrated that discussion with you on this topic is a waste of time.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)It gives gun manufacturers immunity from liability even for the foreseeable misuse of their product so long as that misuse was a criminal act. Well duh, shooting people or hurting people with a gun is a criminal act, so the gun manufacturers are always going to be immune even when they market unreasonably dangerous weapons, like AR-15 with 100-round magazines, that they know nutballs buy to live out their apocolyptic fantasies of mowing down mass numbers of people in seconds.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Fucking duh. If a gun is defective (has a defect in design or manufacture) and causes death, physical injuries, or property damage, the PLCAA does not apply.
*smh*
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)That part you previously bolded, and apparently do not understand, said that the manufacturers are not liable for any defect if the use of the gun was a criminal act. I guess you could call that the Sandy Hook clause.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. a defective firearm.
An actual lawsuit trumps your dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin interpretation.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Funny how that works. You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Here's an article covering an actual settlement. No PLCAA get-out-of-suit-free card invoked.
http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/taurus-agrees-to-39-million-settlement-in-defective-pistol-case/
According to court documents filed May 15 in a U.S. District Court in Florida, the company has agreed to pay up to $30 million to owners of nine separate handgun models who opt to send their pistols back, with owners receiving anywhere from $150 to $200 for their pistols depending on how many choose that option.
Actually, it could affect up to 1 million handguns..
http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/update-taurus-settlement-could-include-nearly-1m-pistols/
The agreement calls for Taurus to give a cash payment of up to $200, repair the pistol or train gun owners how to avoid the alleged safety flaws that cause pistols to discharge when dropped or when the manual safety is on.
Do you really think Taurus wouldn't have invoked PLCAA if it could?!?
*smh*
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The reason they can't invoke the PLCAA immunity in the dropped gun discharge cases is that the dropping of the gun was not a criminal act.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Did someone sneak into your house and post while you were away?
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The PLCAA sharply narrows what sort of fact scenarios a victim can sue a gun manufacturer over. The PLCAA exempts gun manufacturers from liability for even foreseeable misuse if that misuse was a criminal act. That covers a lot of gun misuse.
A car manufacturers can still be sued even if the driver was committing a criminal act. The questions would just be: was the act foreseeable; was the defect created by the manufacturer unreasonable; and was that defect a cause of the injury (it need not even be the only cause).
I know you want me to be saying the PLCAA stops all product liability for gun manufacturers, since that is what your talking points address. But I never said that.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I mean, it's foreseeable that a drunk driver might climb behind the wheel..
Or hey, let's sue Seagrams because it's foreseeable that someone might get drunk.
There is no defect in the car, or the booze- they do what they're supposed to.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)If the defect was unreasonably dangerous, say breaks that overheat and fail at high speeds above 80 mph, it is still foreseeable that people will go that fast even if it is illegal, so the car manufacturer would still be liable if the crash was caused by the breaks failing.
If it is reasonably foreseeable that gun nuts will buy ARs with 100 round magazines to mow people down, especially if the gun mmanufacturer actually markets to those sort of nut bags and designs the product to kill mass amounts of people in an instant, they have produced an uunreasonably dangerous product, i.e. a defective product, and the gun manufacturer should be liable for the damage their production of this product caused. The PLCAA blocks such lawsuits.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)A drunk plowing into you is not a PRODUCT DEFECT.
A person plowing into you because his brakes failed is a PRODUCT DEFECT.
Which one do you think you can sue Chevy for?
Intentionally obtuse. Gotta be.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)You apparently can't wrap your head around that being a defect because you think that is wonderful.
Just because something works as designed does not mean the design itself was not defective. If a product has a defective design, it is a defective product, even if it works as designed.
Metal-tipped lawn darts worked great. They impaled really well into grass...and people. It was foreseeable that kids throwing these things with their friends would end up hitting one of their friends with it. It was a really dangerously designed product that rightfully got sued out of existence.
AR-15s with high capacity magazines are a really dangerously designed and negligently marketed product that appeals to and enables mass murderers. That is its defect. That is the defect the Aurora families wanted to present in their lawsuit. It was foreseeable that this military weapon, made even more dangerous with high capacity magazines and marketed to Rambo types who wanted to get their "man card," as the Bushmaster ad said, would be used in mass killings. It was foreseeable that the unstable individuals such a weapon and ad campaign would entice would in fact use that gun to mow down large numbers of people in seconds, like the gun was (negligently) designed to do.
The gun manufacturers feared such lawsuits would be successful, so they got their shills in Congress to pass the PLCAA to block them. Now, the only defect they could sue Bushmaster for under the PLCAA, ironically, is if the gun didn't work as defectively designed. For example, Bushmaster could be sued if the gun failed to spray people with bullets like Bushmaster promised.
beevul
(12,194 posts)There is no such thing.
Wait, in your opening statement, you say its a civilian weapon. In the same post you say its a 'military weapon'.
Make up your mind.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)With predictable results.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Negative ghostrider. No military in the world uses the ar-15. Militaries use real select fire military weapons, not civilian lookalikes which operate like any other semi-automatic civilian rifle, which the ar-15 is.
branford
(4,462 posts)obviously including the quintessential single-shot Revolutionary War musket.
Offering terms like "military" and "assault weapon" are little more than transparent attempts to institute pervasive gun bans by preying on those ignorant about firearms and the military (and the reason I fully expect the lawsuit filed by the Sandy Hook families against Bushmaster and others to soon suffer the same fate as Aurora lawsuit in the OP).
branford
(4,462 posts)First, despite your complaints about others in this thread, I'm fully aware of the nature of product liability and constitutional jurisprudence. I'm an experienced litigator in NYC and I've even worked for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, researching the issue of gun crime, along with other matters.
Your belief that all or most guns are "designed to mow down dozens of people in seconds" does not make it so, and even if true, does not automatically make them de jure or de facto illegal. Guns are designed to efficiently and accurately propel a piece of metal at high velocity without injuring the user. Firearms are and have historically been used by many millions of people for perfectly legitimate activities, including sport, hunting, self-defense, and even potential civil defense. You need not like these activities for them to remain lawful or accepted. Criminal misuse of firearms is accomplished by a statistically minimal number of lawful gun owners with an even smaller percentage of available guns. If your theory was operative, that foreseeable risk of criminal use alone justified banning or extreme restrictions, cars, knives, prescription drugs, fertilizer, etc., would need to suffer a similar fate, something that will not occur any time soon.
More importantly, unlike other items such as cars and alcohol, access and use of firearms is a protected enumerated right. You are free to argue that the Second Amendment only protects a collective right to militias (and would then be an extreme anomaly in the BOR with protects the People from the government, just ask Laurence Tribe), but that is a legal battle you have already lost (even before Heller). Feel free to try to amend the federal Constitution and that of the vast majority of states. In any event, the gun control battles now mainly involve matters that would likely pass constitutional scrutiny, such as UBC's, but are still inviable due to lack of dedicated public support.
As to whether the relevant suits would have been successful without the PLCAA, there are more than ample case examples to examine that predate the federal law and state analogs. Plaintiffs had very few victories, mostly in carefully chosen jurisdictions where support for gun control is high, and these were generally subsequently lost on appeal. As with all court battles, some cases were settled due to the extreme costs of litigation and appeals for a relatively small industry, the exact result intended by the gun control plaintiffs, many of whom were municipalities with very deep pockets.
Unsurprisingly except to the most extreme partisans, just like how Congress acted in the interests of public policy and opinion by providing immunity to vaccines and aviation part manufacturers, they put a quick and decisive end to this back door gun control tactic. Further attempts at gun control would need to occur through legislatures, as it proper. Notably, even with the recent renewed push for gun control since Sandy Hook, there has been no notable attempts to repeal the PLCAA or similar statutes due to their vast public support.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...perhaps we should look to see what design defect allowed that to happen.
branford
(4,462 posts)You really don't understand tort, constitutional or criminal law.
However, if offers you any consolation, the victim of a criminal attack, regardless of whether it involves a firearm, can still successfully sue their attacker (or his estate).
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)I think in every case you will find the defect to be operator error.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)There is no "vast public support" for the PLCAA. I doubt most people have even heard of it.
You are mistating my position and the law. I am not saying these guns are illegal. Thanks to the NRA, they clearly are. I am saying these military weapons are defectively designed and negligently marketed for civilian use.
Spare me the NRA talking points. The only interests Congress was serving when it passed the PLCAA were those of gun manufacturers.
The 2nd Amendment was indeed designed to protect people from their government, namely to protect us from a standing army. It failed spectacularly, and now its carcus is used by the right to protect gun manufacturers.
beevul
(12,194 posts)When did you pass the bar exam?
They're not 'military weapons'.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
beevul
(12,194 posts)So no, not a military weapon, since the military version is not the semi-automatic civilian version.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)It did not change the nature of the weapon. It is still an air-cooled barrel designed to spew out large amounts of bullets in rapid succession, with the ability to take huge, 100-round magazines. All this makes sense if trying to mow down an advancing army on the battlefield, but insane, or at the very least negligent, to market as a civilian weapon.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Nope. Making it semi-auto removes the military function.
Yes, it did. It no longer functions as its military counterpart does, once changed. That most certainly changes its nature.
Nope. Fully automatic is the design that is intended to spew out large amounts of bullets in rapid succession.
Semi-automatic is designed for aimed fire one shot at a time.
No, fully automatic makes sense if trying to mow down an advancing army on the battlefield. That's why armies worldwide use weapons that are fully automatic, rather than semi-automatics.
Semi-auto makes sense for aimed fire.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The semi-auto function doesn't slow down the shooter much. As demonstrated by the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters, even on semi-auto, the shooter is able to spray a crowd with bullets, killing twenty 6-year-olds in an instant or spray a theater full of movie goers. It can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. That is pretty fast, more than a few a second. The air-cooled barrel allows you to shoot dozens of bullets in rapid succession without it getting too hot, and it can take 100-round magazines.
If you need more than 10 bullets to shoot a deer, you need to stop hunting. You are a danger to yourself and others. The AR-15 was not invented to shoot deer. It was invented to shoot enemy soldiers, lots of them. It is marketed to wannabe soldiers.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/a-history-of-the-rifle-used-in-the-sandy-hook-massacre
AR-15s with a slide fire stock are pretty indistinguishable from full auto (the gun nut in the video practically creams himself over that fact):
beevul
(12,194 posts)Nope. The military NEVER adopted the ar-15. They adapted it to military usefulness, by making it full auto.
If you have trouble differentiating between 'adapted' and 'adopted', I suggest you consult a dictionary.
The semi-auto function doesn't slow down the shooter much. As demonstrated by the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters, even on semi-auto, the shooter is able to spray a crowd with bullets, killing twenty 6-year-olds in an instant or spray a theater full of movie goers. It can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. That is pretty fast, more than a few a second. The air-cooled barrel allows you to shoot dozens of bullets in rapid succession without it getting too hot, and it can take 100-round magazines.
You're changing yardsticks and hoping nobody would notice.
Semi-automatic is a civilian design.
Fully auto is a military design.
Nothing you can say, no matter how many words you use or what order you use them in, can change that, because its a fact.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)You mean like ALL other semi-auto rifles?
"Air cooled"? Like basically all firearms? You mean as opposed to water cooled? I think the last water cooled firearm in the US was the fully automatic M1917 Browning machine gun which served in WWI.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Plus gunners can add AR-15 accessories that intensify the air cooling properties of the barrel, such as this: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/12/19/ar-15-barrel-cooling-fins/
EX500rider
(10,849 posts).....the only modern weapons prone to barrel warping are fully automatic belt fed machine guns after sustained use and abuse.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Yes some greedy hukster somewhere makes cheap "barrel cooling fins"....that does not mean the gun actually needs them.
ALL modern semi-auto guns have a "air cooled barrel" and can fire 1,000's of rounds with no barrel issues.
branford
(4,462 posts)you are free to seeks its repeal. Amending the Constitution is hardly impossible, it's been done 27 times, and there are multiple means to accomplish the goal described in the document. However, your disgust toward guns does not obviate the enumerated right. I doubt we need to argue about the actual chances of repealing the amendment any time soon...
You are similarly free to seek repeal of the PLCAA and its numerous state equivalents. Theoretically, this is a much easier task, and I believe was already accomplished in California. They key is democratically electing representatives that share your views. At least in Congress, I don't believe there has even been a credible bill to eliminate the PLCAA, even with other aspiration gun control attempts such as the renewed assault weapons ban and magazine limits.
Complaining about the NRA is meaningless. They indeed are an effective lobby with significant grassroots support, no different than Planned Parenthood or other liberal groups we probably both support. So what! That's politics, the NRA can have their say and so can you (BTW, not only don't I belong or have any connection to the NRA, I don't even own any guns). In fact, there are many gun control or "gun safety" organization, and you even have a pet billionaire. Bloomberg and his allies actually outspent gun rights groups in the recent Colorado recall elections by a whopping 6 to 1 margin, and the incumbents were still ejected. Gun control support simply does not resonate with as many people as you believe and/or support is proverbially a mile wide and inch deep, unlike gun rights advocates who apparently are fully committed to their issue
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Judge created law can be reversed by a new judge.
branford
(4,462 posts)First, the vast majority of individual states have their own Second Amendment analogs, most of which offer far greater protection that the federal version, with accompanying state gun rights jurisprudence.
More importantly, the Second Amendment only limits restrictions. Most of the proposed gun control legislation, particularly on the federal level, such as UBS's, would likely pass constitutional muster, yet still cannot achieve sufficient support for passage. When Democrats controlled Congress, there wasn't any gun control, and with post-Sandy Hook Republican majorities and polls showing increasing support for gun rights, the Second Amendment is rarely at play. It's democracy that's causing you problems, not the Constitution.
I would also remind you that if a new court overturned gun rights jurisprudence, later courts could just as easily reinstitute it, just like what happened with the death penalty. However, constitutional law once established rarely changes much, and when it does, it's very slow and calculating (e.g., abortion restrictions and desegregation).
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Democracy is not causing me problems. It is craven right wing organizations with money strangling our democracy that I have a problem with.
Party on little NYC lawyer. I'm signing off for the night.
branford
(4,462 posts)Besides, it's not like gun control advocates do not have numerous celebrities, billionaires and lobby groups at their disposal. As I mentioned earlier, you need only look to the Colorado recalls to know that money is not the reason why gun control is electorally toxic.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Why don't you try suing Chevy because their car can be driven by a person under the influence.
Or Seagrams because it's alcohol makes people drunk.
Fucking stupid.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The NRA did not think such a suit is so "fucking stupid" that it had no chance in hell. They went to the trouble of passing the PLCAA out of fear of them.
Such lawsuits are not like suing Seagrams for getting people drunk, unless Seagrams only sells their liquor in 32 oz mugs that are shaped for a car cup holder.
Nor is it like suing Chevy because their cars can be driven by drunks. The cars are not designed specifically to appeal to and enable drunk driving.
AR-15s are specifically designed for mass killing and marketed to appeal to nuts. That you think that is OK is where you go "off the rails."
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Nevermind that granddad's semi-auto mini-14 shoots the same ammunition, or has the same detachable magazine. It's got a wood stock, so it's safe.
Booga booga, that AR-15, it's got.. a pistol grip! Supah-ninja deadly, that.
When you obviously demonstrate that you don't know the first things about guns, gun technology, and the most popular center fire rifle in the US, you lose anyone who has a fucking clue about it.
Expect to see this silliness quoted back to you often.
lostnfound
(16,180 posts)They knew the risks involved, in letting themselves grow to LOVE someone so much that they might give a flip more about honoring her life by exposing the systemic societal weakness that contributed to the loss of her life, than about their own inevitable bankruptcy because of it.
If only they would choose to just lie down and accept it, instead of trying to get recognize the culpability of non-insane people selling ammo to perfect strangers over the Internet, including insane murderers, without any liability for doing so.
appalachiablue
(41,144 posts)trillion
(1,859 posts)
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Quaintness does not deny accuracy.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Oh..it's you.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Assuming facts not in evidence, is what was done.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Too many here on DU will accuse you of really nasty things when you only pointed out the standing law.
Why isn't Brady or Bloomberg paying for this? Who encouraged this suite to begin with?
It takes a lot of money to challenge established law.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
Time to sue these weapons companies into extinction.
branford
(4,462 posts)The Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and similar state laws like the one in Colorado, were enacted precisely to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from defending meritless lawsuits concerning criminal misuse of their products that were designed to bankrupt the industry through legal fees and sympathetic state court judgments that inevitably were overturned on appeal. Nothing in the various laws prevent lawsuits against guns that are actually defective.
A simply reading of the court decisions dismissing the lawsuit and awarding fees explains relevant law and jurisprudence, the obvious and unquestioned political nature of the lawsuit, how the attorneys and plaintiffs knew the risks and likely outcome of the case, and how the parties were improperly attempting to accomplish through the courts what they could not do through legislation.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2014cv02822/151625
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2014cv02822/151625/66
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2014cv02822/151625/45
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)of their weapons. Murderers, that what they are and they fear being tried for the murders they instigate. That's why the law was written by the industry lawyers and enacted by their ALEC prostitutes.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Bully anyone? This law was passed by Congress. Why should a manufacturer be held liable for selling a legal product?
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Just because a product is legal does not mean it is not defective.
branford
(4,462 posts)of their products absent actual defects in the product, and firing bullets doesn't make a gun defective.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Even when the gun manufacturer marketed a product that was made to appeal to a mass murderer and not much else. No reasonable hunter or marskman needs a 100-round drum like the one the Aurora shooter used. The families of the victims should be able to sue the manufacturer of such a ridiculously dangerous product for the readily foreseeable damages such a product causes. Sadly, they are blocked from doing so by a law pushed through by the gun lobby.
branford
(4,462 posts)or accessory, you are free to lobby the relevant legislatures to enact such bans, except to the extent such legislation would run afoul of the Second Amendment or its innumerable state analogs which often provide even greater protections to gun ownership and use. As is evident from civil jurisprudence from both before and after the passage of the PLCAA, the courts cannot and will not usurp the legislatures prerogative. Gun bans will not come about by trying to bankrupt the firearm industry through lawsuits without merit under established general product liability law. All the PLCAA and relevant states laws really accomplish is to attach a price to plaintiffs' attempts to use the courts for political advocacy. Nothing in any of the laws protect firearm manufacturers and dealers if their products are actually defective under accepted legal standards, not your own layman opinion about guns or anything else.
I and the ACLU would similarly remind you that we do not have a Bill of Needs. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, enumerated Constitutional right, no matter you own opinion on the issue, and the burdens necessary to curtail such rights is unsurprisingly quite high.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)It flies in the face of the text itself, framers' intent, and over 100 years of Supreme Court precedent. The 2nd Am was written to prevent the formation of a standing army in peacetime, something the framers were very weary of. So they put in that provision for citizen militias as a way to avoid the need for standing armies. And of course the framers were talking muskets for those militias, not AR-15s with 100-round magazines, and even then they had to be "well regulated."
But we ended up with standing armies anyway, and for almost 200 years the 2nd Amendment was pretty much ignored as an anachronism. But the gun lobby glommed onto it sometime in the 1970s and by the 1980s that whole "right to bear arms" talking point gained traction among the right. All they needed was the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to catch on and they did in 2008 in that 5-4 abomination of an opinion, DC v. Heller.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)
For that matter, Bernie and HRC also think the 2A protects an individual right. Are they RW?
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)That does not mean this judge-created law is not a right wing law or that Dems or Obama think the Heller decision was correctly decided. It was not. This whole "right to guns" meme is and always has been a product of right wing enablers of gun manufacturers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The platform is the party's official position on issues.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Really?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Yeah, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The ENTIRE purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights. I'm more than happy to discuss why you disagree and if you can point me toward articles (law review articles are good) that are on point I'm happy to review. For me, articles like The Embarrassing Second Amendment and The Commonplace Second Amendment are both good examples discussing the fact the Founding Fathers intended to protect an individual right.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The 2nd Amendment was about establishing well regulated citizen militias to prevent the need for a standing army. They feared standing armies and citizens being forced to "quarter" soldiers on their property. So I and many Constitutional scholars see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the individual right not to have to put up with a standing army.
There is no indication that the founders viewed guns as special and thought this amendment was to protect gun ownership outside of well regulated militias.
Sadly, Scalia ignored precedent and the plain text of the 2nd Amendment, and thanks to his 4 right wing buddies on the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment was amended by order of the Supreme Court to create an "individual right to guns" in one of the sickest bits of judicial activism in history. But that is now the law, and most people have accepted it. Dems are just accepting political reality.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Go read the English Bill of Rights of 1690. - the model for our bill of rights. So no, the founders viewed the ownership of guns as an individual right.
Secondly, how do you explain the various state constitutions that specifically define the ownership of guns as an individual right?
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)They had no intention of giving it up.
Believe what you want. It is moot point anyway. This controller fixation on the 2A is baffling to me - it does not prevent strict gun control. AWBs, registration, training, storage laws etc are all perfectly legal. Scalia even says that in Heller. Your problem is not the 2A, it is the lack of public support.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Sadly, the gun nuts have the backing of a very wealthy and influential gun industry, so they are able to intimidate politicians and quash the will of the people.
90% of us want a thorough universal background check at the federal level rather than worthless state efforts. We couldn't even get that, and it wasn't for lack of public support.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Measures that certainly do not enjoy widespread public support. Controllers overreached once again and screwed it all up - they thought post Sandy Hook they could pass any gun control measure they wanted. Misreading public sentiment is a controller trait - they seriously think their views are mainstream.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)During the recent gun control votes, the concealed carry reciprocity amendment received an even larger majority of votes (57), with 13 Democrats voting in favor. More importantly, unlike expanded background checks, CCR would easily have passed the Republican-controlled House.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/1/100
I'm a comprising sort of guy. Would you agree to respect the majority and advocate for a joint bill with both universal background checks and concealed carry reciprocity, or does the majority only matter when you agree with them?
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)You'll need to actually elect representatives that support your preferred policies. As to what the public actually supports, you might want to check the recent Gallup and Pew polls which reflect greater, and increasing, support for gun rights, even post-Sandy Hook.
You also didn't respond to my compromise. I will gladly trade UBC's for concealed carry reciprocity, are you game? Particularly if bundled together without severability, they would likely receive majorities in both Houses of Congress.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Those prostitutes who passed these sick laws are bought and paid for by the weapons manufacturers.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)including a Yea vote by then Representative Bernie Sanders. This case also involved an analogous Colorado state law.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397
These laws basically reinforce the obvious and well established proposition that manufacturers and dealers of otherwise legal (and highly regulated) products are not legally responsible for the criminal misuse of such products. This no different that protecting GM or Ford from liability if someone drives drunk and kills someone or protecting Craftsman if someone is murdered by one of their hammers. The laws offer no protection if the firearms and related items are actually defective.
The only reason why these laws were actually necessary was that firearm manufacturers and dealers were facing innumerable SLAPP-type frivolous lawsuits that intentionally sought to bankrupt them with legal fees on meritless claims. Then, as now with the Phillipses' lawsuit, the plaintiffs were trying to improperly accomplish in court what they could not do in Congress or state legislatures where such advocacy belongs. As detailed extensively in the relevant decisions, the plaintiffs and their counsel were fully aware that they were using the courts for express political advocacy despite their claims' lack of merit under established tort law, and that an award of legal fees was not only likely, but virtually certain, under separate laws when they inevitably lost. I consider the judgment awarding fees as an expected expense for such advocacy, no different from paying for a TV or radio commercial or donating to a campaign.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)He's on record with the NRA arguments about people in rural states needing their guns.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)And only conservadems (and Sanders) seeking to pander to the gun nuts back home voted for that abomination of a bill. 140 Dems voted no, 223 Republicans voted yes. It was a GOP bill that shamefully did the NRA's bidding.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h534
msongs
(67,413 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)What you really want is some form of punitive tax on firearm use and ownership. However, such a policy would almost certainly be unconstitutional as little more than a "poll tax" on an enumerated right.
Insurance also does not cover criminal acts. No insurance could or would be available for criminal misuse of firearms. Negligent damage resulting from firearms are already covered by most existing homeowners and renters policies, and is otherwise extremely cheap to procure due to the statistically insignificant chance of such accidents, despite what you see or read in the news. Ironically, the NRA is the largest provider of such insurance policies, and any insurance requirement would be a tremendous financial windfall for the organization.
Comprehensive gun control will not be enacted in the USA through financially or bureaucratically punitive schemes or product liability judicial decisions. It will require changing the hearts and minds of a very great number of Americans, and the condescending and scornful attitudes expressed by many in threads like this, often against other loyal and progressive Democrats, is a losing strategy. Such gun control will also be inherently limited by the Second Amendment, absent its repeal or modification, which stands as much chance as electing a unicorn to the White House.
If one wants to own a firearm fine but it is time for the responsibility of ownership to be commensurate with the potential of the firearm. Insurance, yearly registration / tag / safety training.
I had to have insurance to fly my rc plane to operate my jet ski...but if something goes unintentionally terribly wrong with a gun and property gets damaged or someone gets injured or killed it is just a "tragic accident" and the responsible person can walk away from it.
The reality is that there is no such thing as a "tragic accident" when it come to firearms but society has been fooled into thinking there is. At the very least there is negligence at the worst there is pre-meditated wrong doing.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Or criminal negligence? I bet not.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Gun manufacturers know they are selling to nut cases and they just don't give a shit. If you file suit to try to get them to change their hideous ways, they bankrupt you. 
branford
(4,462 posts)Read the court decisions I referenced earlier in the thread.
There is certainly room for discussion, but although wildly inaccurate hyperbole might be emotionally satisfying, it's a losing political, judicial and electoral strategy to achieve even the most modest gun safety rules.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)And the gun manufacturers say that bullshit not to make us safe but to sell guns.
Exhibit A:
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Actually gun manufactures generally only sell to licensed gun dealers. They in turn sell them to the public.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Gun manufacturers know they are selling to nut cases via middlemen gun dealers. And they know that some of those gun dealers are purposefully horrible at background checks and inventory control. The manufacturers know that a minority of gun dealers are responsible for the majority of guns used in crimes. The gun manufacturers know which gun dealers those are, yet keep selling to them, because they care more about money than people's lives. And we can't sue the gun manufacturers nor gun dealers for this appalling state of affairs because the PLCAA gives them immunity from suit for selling to a nut case who then proceeds to mow down people.
Gun manufacturers know who they are selling to. Yes they do.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts).....it's up to the ATF to pull licences of non-compliant law breaking dealers, not the manufacturer. There are a total of 129,817 gun dealers in the US, how would the manufacturers keep track of that many.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Everyone knows who they are. The criminals know, the nut cases know, and the gun manufacturers know. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102402221.html
ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
And of those 8%, there are the really REALLY obvious ones. 1 percent of gun dealers nationally are responsible for selling 57 percent of the weapons used in crimes. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/article/2013/nov/12/us-rep-james-langevin-says-60-percent-weapons-used/
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)And so are necroguniacs. Gotta have it their way or the gun lobby will be mean to legislators!!
Guns is exempt from the Consumer Protection Act. They'z sooo special.
Guns an' gun sellers iz protected from civil and criminal charges by the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act. 'Cause gunz is soooo special.
Guns kill 30,000, wound 100,000 and cost the economy $200 billion a year but we can't talk about it 'cause they sooooo special.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Try to sue Corporations out of existence, because of the behavior by stupid people.
It happened before with "Light" Aircraft, aka General Aviation. With the General Aviation Revitalization Act The article is too long to quote in full, but you can read the Wikipedia article. And it was signed by President Bill Clinton.
It was intended to counteract the effects of prolonged product liability on general aviation aircraft manufacturers, by limiting the duration of their liability for the aircraft they produce.
GARA is a statute of repose generally shielding most manufacturers of aircraft (carrying fewer than 20 passengers), and aircraft parts, from liability for most accidents (including injury or fatality accidents) involving their products that are 18 years old or older (at the time of the accident), even if manufacturer negligence was a cause.
Besides that, When you attempt to engage in social engineering through the courts, and it bites you in the ass, it is on one's fault but yours.
You've convinced me. Most well-reasoned argument I've seen in a while. Genius.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)if one of your clients uses a gun you sold them to murder people?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)or something....
They can look in my underwear before I fly on a plane, and read my e-mails but I shouldn't be bothered unless I have something to hide, yet Joe Sixpack can still pick up an ar-15 at Wal-Mart on his way home from the job he was just fired from and it's no big deal.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)and they could lose the law that protects them. On the other hand, if they forgo the damages, then everyone will sue hoping to get a different judge.
branford
(4,462 posts)The relevant laws are in no danger, and would require legislative majorities and executive consent to repeal. The people who would oppose collection efforts already support gun control and oppose the PLCAA and state equivalents, and the scathing language used by the judge is more than sufficient to counterbalance anyone who might be otherwise sympathetic to the plaintiffs. The battle lines concerning firearms have been established, and this case will make little difference.
In fact, any attempt to repeal or alter the laws would energize the votes of people who tend not to vote for our party. It would be a similar phenomenon to how calls for gun restrictions end up increasing gun sales and applications for concealed carry permits.
I would also note that the defendants have already stated that they will not keep the funds, but intend to donate the fees collected to gun rights organizations.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Pushed by the pro controller organization to sue even though they knew what the law stated right or wrong. The Brady bunch and the lawyers should pay for this but they run and leave the family hanging.
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)The Brady Campaign comes out and makes a public announcement that they will pay the bill, saving the Phillips from bankruptcy.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)This could well have been the strategy the entire time. The Brady Center rolls like that.
Of course the gun companies might just sell the debt, make a press release saying the parents no longer owe them money, and be done with it. The parents on the other hand will be dealing with a collection agency many years.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)It is not worth infecting my computer. It is a right wing propaganda organization.
Where the fuck do you get off citing that shit on DU?
If that is where you get your information, that confirms a lot about you...and your so-called facts.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 16, 2014
Jennifer Fuson
202-370-8128
jfuson@bradymail.org
Brady Center Sues Online Sellers of Ammunition and Equipment Used in Aurora Movie Theater Massacre
Others Were Negligent in Supplying James Holmes
Denver, Colo. – Websites that supplied Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes with ammunition, body armor, tear gas and other equipment used in his assault were negligent, according to a lawsuit announced today by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Arnold & Porter LLP. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was shot and killed in the Aurora movie theater shooting in 2012. The suit alleges that the websites negligently supplied Holmes with the arsenal he used to kill 12 people and wound at least 58 others.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Lawsuits are always "filed on behalf of" clients when filed by attorneys (as opposed being filed in pro per). Further, it appears the lawyers who represented the parents were Arnold & Porter LLP. This announcement does not support your assertion.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)That the plaintiffs/clients are also employees of the Brady Center?
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts).
.
.
"It sounds to me like an untested legal move on the part of the Brady Center," he said. "And I would be skeptical how successful they're likely to be."
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)You cut that out of course. It appears the Times statement that the Brady Center filed the lawsuit is incorrect. Either way, none of that supports your assertion that the Brady Center "put them up to it."
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Flail some more, pretending that Brady has nothing to do with their employees' lawsuit.
It's kinda cute.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The lawsuit was in the family's name, not the Brady Center's. There is no evidence that the Brady Center "put them up to it" or talked them into filing the lawsuit. The families appear quite motivated on their own to try to do something about mass killings, regardless of the Brady Center.
I notice the more wrong you are, the more rude you get.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)If the family feels it was hookwinked by the Brady Center into filing a lawsuit that they had no idea they could be hit with an attorneys fees bill in the likely event they lost, they would say so. So far, the only disdain the Phillips family has expressed is toward the subject law and the gun manufacturers.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)[font color="color" size="20" face="face"]Brady Center Sues Online Sellers of Ammunition and Equipment Used in Aurora Movie Theater Massacre[/font]
Others Were Negligent in Supplying James Holmes
Denver, Colo. – Websites that supplied Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes with ammunition, body armor, tear gas and other equipment used in his assault were negligent, according to a lawsuit announced today by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Arnold & Porter LLP. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was shot and killed in the Aurora movie theater shooting in 2012. The suit alleges that the websites negligently supplied Holmes with the arsenal he used to kill 12 people and wound at least 58 others.
The lawsuit names Lucky Gunner (BulkAmmo.com), which allegedly sold Holmes over 4,000 rounds of ammunition; The Sportman’s Guide, which allegedly sold Holmes a 100-round drum ammunition magazine and 700 rounds; BulletProofBodyArmorHQ.com, which allegedly sold Holmes multiple pieces of body armor; and BTP Arms, which allegedly sold him two canisters of tear gas, as defendants.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The NRA and it's gun manufacturer brethern are pure evil, but you disagree and you support the gun manufacturers, we get it - why not just say so?
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The NRA is evil and you refuse to even utter the name, also understood.
And you know what, "putting someone up" to fighting a fascist law is good with me and most Democrats I know.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is that you support lawsuits against companies that produce a legal product that operates the way it was supposed to operate but was used in a criminal manner. Is that correct or do you have a different explanation?
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Again, nothing there about the Brady Center putting the Phillips family "up to it," like the Phillips family were conned into it by the Brady Center or something.
This family was very motivated on their own. They didn't want their daughter's death to be for nothing. They wanted to do something about this horrible situation of guns being sold online to nuts.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)I don't think the Phillips family was conned, but I do think the Brady Bunch exploited them to file the lawsuit and pay the consequences of an obvious loser lawsuit given Colorado law.
If you want to be in denial that this was a legal strategy by the Brady Bunch then I'm content to leave you with your beliefs.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 02:02 AM - Edit history (1)
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)The Brady Center should pay the fees.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)...as a protest against the CO law and the similar federal version.
valerief
(53,235 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Constant slurs about penis size, sexual ability, sexual performance, wanting to have sex with guns, confusing guns with sex, etc, etc, etc.
The penis / sex slurs against men are are really popular here, not just in this area, and god, the hypocrisy. If someone here said something similar about some woman's sex life, or breast size, or genitalia, the reaction would be thermonuclear.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I will never understand why anti-gun types always feel the need to make sexual references when arguing their points.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And shows a lack of common decency
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The desire to make sexual references in regards to a mere object seems much more benign than almost 10,000 gun deaths per year. However, I can certainly understand focusing righteously on the one while blithely ignoring the other... "it's their go-to tactic." 
valerief
(53,235 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Par for the course I have found.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Controller response to put someone on ignore when you can't rebut their argument? I seriously find this disheartening - I'd hoped Democrats could defend their positions instead or run and hide behind the nearest bush.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Sorry that is all you have to contribute 
branford
(4,462 posts)I am, however, a litigation attorney in NYC, well acquainted with basic tort and product liability jurisprudence, and happen to appreciate the entire Bill of Rights, without exception.
Nevertheless, if your arguments for gun control, repeal of the PLCAA and its state analogs, or a wholesale alteration of centuries of tort law, amount to little more than emotive contempt and juvenile sexual innuendo, it's no wonder support for gun rights is at an all time high, and Democratic representatives and control of statehouses have virtually disappeared in the South and much of the Midwest.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
valerief
(53,235 posts)Goodbye forever.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)they are not.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)examples of text "cut" from the "NRA", the source of the text, and what posts in which this text is pasted.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Makes up the "ammosexual" group that makes you ill? I've voted for the Democrat on the ticket since I turned 18 in 1987. I also support the notion that the Second Amendment protects the lawful ownership of guns. Do I fall into the "ammosexual" group simply because I believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I imagine I've been "ignored" by Fred, or he has no response. I seriously don't understand why folks who participate in a message forum designed for debate would screen out the opinions of those with whom they disagree. This country was founded on (and grew through) debate and compromise, not blind promotion of a single point of view.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)trillion
(1,859 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)to have to pay the respondent's legal fees if he loses?
The default in the American legal system is that parties are responsible for their own legal fees, unlike countries such as Great Britain.
However, some legislation such as various civil rights laws do permit the recovery of legal fees. Additionally, if a court finds that a complaint is frivolous or meant as a means of harassment, it could also award fees as a means of sanction.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)loser pay: you lose, you pay the lawsuit victor's legal fees
it has pluses and minuses, but fear of frivolous lawsuits is a nonissue in those jurisdictions
24601
(3,962 posts)is a legitimate dispute - each side pays their own lawyers, frivolous - plaintiff pays all legal fees, or meritorious (opposite of frivolous) where the defendant loses and also pays all fees.
branford
(4,462 posts)and wholly within the province of a judge and appellate courts, not juries.
In the federal system and various states, clear mechanisms already exist to sanction attorneys and parties for frivolous claims, although it is more common is certain jurisdictions (e.g., federal courts) than others.
Increasing the risk of "loser pays" in the USA through jury discretion risks discouraging borderline, yet legitimate, claims by the indigent and poor, particularly in evolving areas of jurisprudence such as claims involving privacy and technology disputes.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"fear of frivolous lawsuits is a nonissue in those jurisdictions..."
As is the poor refusing to bring a valid lawsuit to bear for fear of personal bankruptcy also.
MichMan
(11,934 posts)[link:http://www.bradycampaign.org/press-room/brady-center-sues-online-sellers-of-ammunition-and-equipment-used-in-aurora-movie-theater|
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press-room/brady-center-sues-online-sellers-of-ammunition-and-equipment-used-in-aurora-movie-theater
Denver, Colo. – Websites that supplied Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes with ammunition, body armor, tear gas and other equipment used in his assault were negligent, according to a lawsuit announced today by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Arnold & Porter LLP. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was shot and killed in the Aurora movie theater shooting in 2012. The suit alleges that the websites negligently supplied Holmes with the arsenal he used to kill 12 people and wound at least 58 others.
<snip>
A crazed, homicidal killer should not be able to amass a military arsenal, without showing his face or answering a single question, with the simple click of a mouse,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project and co-counsel for Sandy and Lonnie Phillips. “If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes. Sandy and Lonnie Phillips have brought this lawsuit to make sellers of lethal arms and military equipment use reasonable care. ”
<snip>
The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan Lowy, Elizabeth Burke and Kelly Sampson of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C., and Paul Rodney of Arnold & Porter LLP in Denver, Colorado. The lawsuit, which was filed in Arapahoe County District Court, seeks injunctions requiring the defendants to reform their business practices.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But it makes better headlines to have a poor couple take the loss than the Brady bunch.
branford
(4,462 posts)They knew perfectly well about the strength of their claims and all the attendant risks.
In fact, Lonnie Philips is actually employed by the Brady Campaign!
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lonnie-phillips/16/a/722
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Good optics for them. Big mean company against poor innocent family.
branford
(4,462 posts)that this case will sway virtually no one either way. The battle lines were drawn long ago. That's precisely why terrible incidents like Sandy Hook had little long-term effect. This current case is not even small blip.
However, gun rights supporters are a dedicated bunch, and largely Democratic calls for more gun control more often than not sadly help elect Republicans and jeopardize the entirety of a progressive agenda. Most of our party didn't learn from the aftereffects of Clinton and the expired Assault Weapons Ban, after the defeat of the recent UBC and related legislation in the Senate (which had no chance of passing in the House), and I fear will again hurt us in 2016.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The Phillips family was the plaintiff. Unless the Brady Center agreed to pay any costs/attorney fees, which it appears they did not, then the family is stuck with this bill for the gun manufacturers' attorneys fees.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The Brady Center was not the plaintiff.
MichMan
(11,934 posts)If the attorneys for the Brady Center used the grieving parents to make a political statement on a case they should have known was not winnable, they deserve total contempt and should be be disbarred
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)The articles at the time all said the lawsuit had little chance. I think it is pretty obvious they knew that but wanted to try anyway.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)want to do something about the daily mass shootings in America. Funny how liberal and progressive parents cling to their children, not their guns.
Compassion is the one thing gun lovers will never understand.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)be mentioned if the mass media covered the story.
Better to avoid it altogether and cover some more Trump.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)which clearly spells out that firearms and ammunition dealers are not responsible for actions of a third party, the suit would also be dismissed Under CO statute 13-21-402, which applies to all products:
or maintained against any seller of a product unless said seller is also the manufacturer of
said product or the manufacturer of the part thereof giving rise to the product liability
action. Nothing in this part 4 shall be construed to limit any other action from being
brought against any seller of a product.
***
definiton-(2) "Product liability action" means any action brought against a manufacturer or
seller of a product, regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the
action is brought, for or on account of personal injury, death, or property damage caused
by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formula, installation,
preparation, assembly, testing, packaging, labeling, or sale of any product, or the failure
to warn or protect against a danger or hazard in the use, misuse, or unintended use of any
product, or the failure to provide proper instructions for the use of any product
RandySF
(58,899 posts)but is this how the law SHOULD be?
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)with manufacturers of legal products protected from liability for third party actions.
Example- should Ford and Budweiser be sued for drunk driving accidents?
If a firearms dealer fails to conduct a background check I would favor allowing a suit but an ammunition seller- either online or face to face- has no background check to monitor buyers; therefore I do not find it reasonable to hold them liable.
As for requiring plaintiffs to pay fees, I accept that as a precedent. Imagine if it was not the case how RW groups could file mass suits against abortion providers to force them into bankruptcy.
RandySF
(58,899 posts)Destroy anyone who threatens their fetish.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Of Colorado is a "gun humper"? What about Bernie Sanders, who supported a similar federal law? "Gun humper" too? All the Democrats who voted for the federal law? "Gun humpers"? What about all the Democrats that support a right to keep and bear arms? "Gun humpers"? I'd like to know how you define the "gun humper" population?
RandySF
(58,899 posts)And shame on anyone, including Bernie, for supporting anything similar to this.
trillion
(1,859 posts)And yes, this is the 2nd despicable point I've seen on Bernie.
trillion
(1,859 posts)
Response to angka (Original post)
Post removed
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)is already law in the USA.
Of course they still can be 'sued' but you'll pay for life, lose everything if you lose.
angka
(1,599 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)https://www.facebook.com/bradycampaign/posts/10151657306554212
Lonnie Phillips
Operations Manager at Brady Campaign & Center to Prevent Gun Violence
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lonnie-phillips/16/a/722
From the OP:
So, apparently, has the particulars of their employment.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Did it ever occur to you that these grieving parents of this beautiful young woman wanted to do something constructive with their grief, to try to prevent other parents from experiencing this same horror?
beevul
(12,194 posts)That doesn't change the fact that they knew full well what they were getting into before committing to it. If anything, that just confirms it.
That may or may not be true, however, working hand in hand with the brady campaign as they surely did, to file a lawsuit that was ethically morally and legally bankrupt, is not what most people would characterize as 'constructive'.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Most people would describe the Phillips family as brave. Trying to change a bad law is ethical and moral.
The fact that you would insult these grieving parents by calling them immoral and unethical says a lot about you.
Using the courts to try to achieve outcomes that are the proper purview of the legislature, is ethically, morally and legally bankrupt.
Most people do not believe in using the courts to side step the legislature.
I said "...a lawsuit that was ethically morally and legally bankrupt...". I said nothing of the sort about the parents.
The fact that you would insult me by misrepresenting what I said, says everything anyone needs to know about our exchange, and your part in it.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)I've already had this discussion with your gungeon compadres up the thread, see e.g., posts 134-169. I am not going waste my time repeating it with you.
beevul
(12,194 posts)That design is 65 years old for cripes sake.
Semi-automatic tech in general is far far older yet.
If you're worried about wasting your time, then don't repeat it at all to anyone.
The assertion is absurd on its face, and you're wasting time, - mine, yours, everyones - in making it.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Should Big Tobacco get the same protections as Arms manufacturers?
beevul
(12,194 posts)If someone clubs someone else to death with a carton of cigs, should big tobacco be sued for it?
branford
(4,462 posts)the internally known dangers of their product, not because cigarettes were inherently hazardous to one's health. That is precisely why smokers today very rarely have viable claims against the companies.
I assume you're not claiming that the general public doesn't know the effects of being short. Heck, many gun control advocates here on DU complain about firearm marketing because they're too open about gun use and danger (e.g., the "Man Card" advertising).
stone space
(6,498 posts)Morally bankrupt is when arms manufacturers target individual gun victims, as has been done here.
Not when gun victims fight back.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You have the cart and the horse backward.
Brady brought the lawsuit, brady did the targeting, not any 'arms manufacturers. it says as much in the title of the Op. The 'manufacturers' side of the suit were defendants.
That kind of breaks your point.
I do have to thank you though, I had a good hearty laugh at that.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I can't imagine how much hate one must have in ones heart to attempt to bankrupt grieving gun victims.
It's a mentality that is foreign to me.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Most people call that defending themselves legally after being attacked legally. 'Most people' in this case being defined as 'anyone not standing on turn table spinning desperately'.
The brady bunch and co played stupid games, and you're questioning that that I'm not outraged that they won stupid prizes? They knew what they were getting into, and they knew the potential consequences and legal costs.
Lets see what the judge said about the case:
"It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court... appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order."
http://www.luckygunner.com/brady-v-lucky-gunner
stone space
(6,498 posts)And no, it is not "self defense" when gun manufactures attack individual gun victims and attempt to bankrupt them.
Did anybody in the gun company die?
Gun nuts spout "self defense" at the drop of a hat.
Even here at DU, Zimmerman's murder of Treyvon Martin gets describes as "self-defense" by right wing ammosexuals, and anybody who dares to call it a murder gets pounced on and hidden.
So now, when gun manufacturers attack individual gun victims and attempt to bankrupt them, that, too, is self defense?
I call bullshit on that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Did you bother to read the OP?
The lawsuit was the parents. It failed. That has consequences.
Sorry Charlie.
branford
(4,462 posts)in order to seek political attention and engage in transparent advocacy.
The outcome of this case was unsurprising to anyone even remotely familiar with the relevant law, including plaintiffs' counsel, the Brady group, and the plaintiff parents whom they employ, and only a fool would not seek payment of fees defending such claims if they were explicitly entitled to the remedy by statute.
stone space
(6,498 posts)And calling moral people fools shows just how extreme this conversation has become.
branford
(4,462 posts)in order to seek political attention.
When groups or individuals have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending legally baseless causes of action, whether you like it or not, they become victims. The fact that the plaintiffs suffered a tragedy does not entitle them to victimize others for political attention, no matter your personal opinion concerning firearms or the relevant law.
The judge's scathing opinions both dismissing the claims and then awarding fees speak for themselves.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Seriously?
Who do you work for?
beevul
(12,194 posts)No.
Quasi-asserted with out evidence, and likewise dismissed without evidence.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Let's not play games here.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I bring it up, so that nobody is under the illusion that there is no connection between the parents and the brady bunch outside the lawsuit, and so that no one is under the illusion that the parents were unaware of the strategy being employed and the likely consequences.
That's the true source of your objection to it being posted, is it not?
