General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAurora parents sue gun dealers, have to pay THEM $200k
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
"On July 20, 2012, a man wearing body armor and carrying an arsenal of firearms and tear gas fatally shot 12 people and wounded 58 others during a midnight screening at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. The Brady Center subsequently filed a lawsuit against companies that had supplied the gunman, on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter, Jessica Ghawi, was killed in the shooting.
The lawsuit alleged that Lucky Gunner (Gun company) and several other companies had negligently supplied the gunman with thousands of rounds of ammunition, body armor, a high-capacity drum magazine that could hold 100 rounds of ammunition, and canisters of tear gas.
In April, a federal court dismissed the lawsuit and Lucky Gunner and other defendants moved to collect attorney's fees from the plaintiffs. On June 17, a judge granted that request, ordering the Phillipses to pay $203,000. The decision is currently under appeal."
Sweet Jesus, this is just so fuckin' wrong -
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/30/conservative-reporter-misrepresents-court-decis/204203
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)There will be a tipping point. Tick tock tick tock...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)A quote from another culture warrior, albeit one on a different crusade:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026925456
In an interview, Moore told The Huffington Post that one of the movement's main mistakes in the gay marriage fight was assuming traditionalists would always have public opinion on their side. Social conservatives didn't anticipate or prepare for the dramatic turnabout in national sentiment on this issue over the last 10 years, he said, assuming they'd always operate from a position of strength in the culture war. They believed that fundamentally, Americans shared their values...
History teaches us that those who misread the zeitgeist are always doomed to failure:
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"This time, for sure!"
?w=450
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Let the record show that the witness made the 'drinky-drinky' motion.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
petronius
(26,602 posts)awarding legal fees does likewise. So--if you'll forgive my amateur law-chopping--it seems that the outcome would have been the same regardless of the PLCAA.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/260723111/Order-Dismissing-Lucky-Gunner-Lawsuit
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/DE-66-Phillips-Order-granting-fees-and-costs45.pdf
That said, my opinion is that PLCAA is an appropriate law and Sanders was correct to support it...
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)...for really disturbed individuals, I could get behind the spirit of PLCAA or PLCAA-like laws.
And yes, there is a duty to report on exceptional cases and I think Holmes would've fallen under such a theoretical reporting duty (simply allowing psychiatrists to report disturbed individuals to a gun seller database). It would have not have had an effect for Loughner, however.
As it stands now these kinds of laws don't allow for such considerations to be argued in front of a jury, even if it was a super weak case (they would have to prove the dealers knew that Holmes was going to do something, I think).
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)One of Holmes' psychiatrists suspected, prior to the shooting, that Holmes suffered from mental illness and could be dangerous. A month before the shooting, Dr. Lynne Fenton reported to the campus police that he had made homicidal statements.[57] Two weeks prior to the shooting, Holmes sent a text message asking a graduate student if the student had heard of the disorder dysphoric mania, and warning the student to stay away from him "because I am bad news".[58]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I meant to say that dealers would have to be made aware of it.
As it stands now any gun nut, literally, can get a gun, as long as they don't have a felony or any other mitigating charges.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)As crazy as this may sound law enforcement ought to be enforcing the laws. Yet, how many spree killers had been known to LE as potential threats?
Cho, Loughner, Hasan, Alexis, Holmes, Lanza, Rodgers are the ones I can think of just off the top of my head.
Sadly, the USSC already ruled years ago that LE has no obligation to protect. Even if they are informed that someone is actively violating a restraining order the police have no legal duty to intervene -- but they can kill unarmed citizens with impunity.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Without a chance for a person to stand in front of a judge and have counsel defend themselves?
The fuck?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Good thing you aren't getting paid for this, because it's a total rip-off
former9thward
(31,963 posts)Colorado has a law forbidding such lawsuits against manufactures and they knew that. They admitted they filed the suit just to make a point. So it is no wonder the judge ruled they have to pay attorneys fees. A correct ruling.
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)former9thward
(31,963 posts)They wanted to make a point. Fine, it costs them a couple hundred grand to do it.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Anybody with 1 year in law school knew they would not win this case.
If you bring up a case and lose you pay the legal fees, that the way our system works.
If I speed 100mph and kill somebody, don't sue Mazda. Sue me.
If you sue Mazda, you will probably lose, and you will probably have to pay legal fees.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Did the murderer illegally purchase the ammo?
If it is a legal product that functioned properly, I don't see how there could be a suit.
Now make them illegal and we'll go from there....
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Under this piece of legislation a gun seller must be proven to KNOW that a piece of armament will be used in a crime before tney can be found liable.
So a guy walks into a gun store, says "The voices in my head say to buy that one," and the seller cannot be held liable because it can't be proven that he knew this guy would commit a crime with this gun.
This level of proof does not apply to any other product.
Guns are sooooo special.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Talk about hearing things.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I think I see why you're so resentful of people who use facts as the basis for their policy debates.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Thanks for the insults, though. Classy, as always.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)All I did was first, note the fact that you made a completely fabricated statement; then, when you showed the statement was based on a cartoon I noted you cited a cartoonist who made a completely fabricated statement.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's an easy error to make...
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Oh, the hypocrisy and irony!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The only one hearing voices appears to be Bennett, while others traffic his hallucinations as facts.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)CBS News later reported that Holmes met with at least three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado prior to the massacre.
One of Holmes' psychiatrists suspected, prior to the shooting, that Holmes suffered from mental illness and could be dangerous. A month before the shooting, Dr. Lynne Fenton reported to the campus police that he had made homicidal statements.[57] Two weeks prior to the shooting, Holmes sent a text message asking a graduate student if the student had heard of the disorder dysphoric mania, and warning the student to stay away from him "because I am bad news".[58]
(snip)
On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased a Glock 22 pistol at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora. Six days later, on May 28, he bought a Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun at a Bass Pro Shops in Denver.[64] On June 7, just hours after failing his oral exam at the university,[52] he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle from a Gander Mountain in Thornton, with a second Glock 22 pistol at the same Bass Pro Shops in Denver on July 6.[65] All the weapons were bought legally and background checks were performed.[66] In the four months prior to the shooting, Holmes also bought 3,000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3,000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet.[67][68] On July 2, he placed an order for a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, two magazine holders, and a knife at an online retailer.[67][69] He also purchased spike strips, which he later admitted he planned to use in case police shot at him or followed him in a car chase.[70]
On June 25, less than a month before the shooting, Holmes emailed an application to join a gun club in Byers, Colorado. The owner, Glenn Rotkovich, called him several times throughout the following days to invite him to a mandatory orientation, but could only reach his answering machine. Due to the nature of Holmes' voice mail, which he described as "bizarre, freaky", "guttural, spoken with a deep voice, incoherent and rambling", Rotkovich instructed his staff to inform him if Holmes showed up, though Holmes neither appeared at the gun range nor called back. "In hindsight, looking back – and if I'd seen the movies – maybe I'd say it was like the Joker – I would have gotten the Joker out of it... It was like somebody was trying to be as weird as possible", Rotkovich said.[71]
Loony as all get out, legally able to buy an arsenal and use it. But you lot side with the gun industry, so it's all "haha, laugh at the families for trying to sue, it's so funny!" because guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)law abiding citizens do as well. Do drunk drivers and drunken wife beaters make an argument for reinstating Prohibition because BOOZ!
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)......."legally able to buy an arsenal......." (emphasis mine). He purchased his arsenal LEGALLY, and passed the required background checks. He broke no law when he bought the firearms and ammunition. And neither did the merchants who sold him the weaponry or the companies that manufactured them.
We don't punish people and/or companies that have broken no laws for operating outside the laws you wish were on the books, but aren't. That makes the referenced suit frivolous.
And making those who file frivolous lawsuits that waste the court's time pay the attorney's fees of the other party is commonplace. Would be nice if it did a better job of encouraging people not to file such suits, but at least it protects those who have stayed within the boundaries of the law from having to pay big fat fees just to defend themselves.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Like a mental health evaluation, or psychiatric review of some sort, and not just a questionnaire to fill out.
Of course the NRA and friends will spit nails even at the suggestion...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)potentially dangerous. Law ENFORCEMENT chose to not follow up on that report in VIOLATION of the LAW.
So obviously 300 million people have to have their rights trampled because guns.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You know what would be even more impressive?
Finding several tens of millions of voters to also reliably agree with you.
But you lot apparently have a solid base amongst certain graphic artists,
so there's that...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Orrex
(63,189 posts)Responsibility? Accountability? Not for our stalwart defenders of the sacred second amendment!
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)The answer is no?
If its going down the highway at 100 mph, you can not sue the car dealer either.
If the brakes fail and it kills somebody, you can sue. There have been defective gun designs as well, and people can sue over those.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)they make a gun that is flawed and causes harm. Just like with car manufacturers. 
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Gun control is his progressive Achille's heel.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)subject to liability laws, like other manufacturers.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the state law insulates retailers. That is where the suit was lost based on state law.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...(and successfully) for unsafe trigger mechanisms on their Model 700 rifles:
https://www.google.com/search?q=remington+model+700+defective&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=remington+model+700+defective+lawsuit
Along those lines, I'll just leave the following:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=48984
Statement on Signing the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994
August 17, 1994
I am pleased to sign into law S. 1458, the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994." It is before me today as a result of bipartisan support in the Congress, and the hard work of many who have labored long to achieve passage of such legislation. The result is legislation that accommodates the need to revitalize our general aviation industry, while preserving the legal rights of passengers and pilots. This limited measure is intended to give manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and related component parts some protection from lawsuits alleging defective design or manufacture after an aircraft has established a lengthy record of operational safety.
In 1978, U.S. general aviation manufacturers produced 18,000 of these aircraft for domestic use and for export around the world. Our manufacturers were the world leaders in the production of general aviation aircraft. By 1993, production had dwindled to only 555 aircraft. As a result, in the last decade over 100,000 wellpaying jobs were lost in general aviation manufacturing. An innovative and productive American industry has been pushed to the edge of extinction. This Act will allow manufacturers to supply new basic aircraft for flight training, business use, and recreational flying.
The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations.
In its report to me and to the Congress last August, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry recommended the enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The report indicated that the enactment of such legislation would "help regenerate a once-healthy industry and help create thousands of jobs." I agree with this assessment; this is a job-creating and jobrestoring measure that will bring good jobs and economic growth back to this industry. It will also help U.S. companies restore our Nation to the status of the premier supplier of general aviation aircraft to the world, favorably affecting our balance of trade. Therefore, as I sign into law the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan work done by the Congress and by all the supporters of the general aviation industry.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House, August 17, 1994.
NOTE: S. 1458, approved August 17, was assigned Public Law No. 103-298.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)It really isn't your fault, a select few spout this nonsense at every opportunity knowing full well it is nothing more than baseless propaganda in hopes of duping well meaning people like you.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)sarisataka
(18,554 posts)when their product is used in a crime without their knowledge? Or even with their knowledge?
This suit involved gun dealers, not gun manufacturers. And the reason it lost was Colorado law. Not Federal. Just the facts.
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.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts) Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I don't agree with Sanders on this subject.
Peace to the family, they've been through enough.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the law is crystal clear on the matter.
And their suit doesn't even make sense. The dealer did everything the law required them to do. The family is basically saying that because the dealer didn't magically ascertain that Holmes was a crazy person, they were some how at fault.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... how many people simply cannot deal with simple facts. A gun dealer sold a gun. He broke no laws. End of fucking story.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)“If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes.”
The Brady Center tried to pursue that rational but in the US, laws protect assholes like the Lucky Gunner Company.
I wonder why.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)for criminal misuse of their products by 3rd parties. Not Ford, not Craftsman, not Budweiser.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)“If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes.”
That is the equivalent to cars, screw drivers and beer?
The reason the Brady Center takes on a case is because they're left with very few choices
that may penetrate the NRA wall of enablers.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The businesses were selling a legal product in compliance with established law. There is longstanding legal precedent that the manufacturer of a legal product sold in compliance with the law is not responsible for the criminal misuse of there product by 3rd parties. This applies to guns, cars, screwdrivers and beer. Equal protection under the law.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)were being sued for criminal actions by 3rd parties while the manufacturers of cars were not. Both are legal products being sold in compliance with established law. The law is clear; if you manufacture a legal product and sell in in compliance with the law you are not responsible for the criminal actions of a 3rd party using that product. If you manufacture screwdrivers and someone uses one to burglarize a house you cannot be sued by the victim. Same as cars, same as guns. Equal protection under the law. Pretty simple, really.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)That is because of the NRA, not because it is a rational viewpoint.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)All are legal products being sold in accordance with established law and are, therefore, treated the same. Equal protection. Simple.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)they are not well regulated in this online sales company.
Military grade weapons..just like a Cadillac.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)All are equal. It's really a very simple concept for all but the willfully obtuse.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Talk about being obtuse.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)have failed, they should not have such protections..they do due to the heavy handed
lobby of the NRA.
That is a story in itself..you can't penetrate that wall put up by the NRA and hold them
accountable..you can't get anything meaningful done...best to keep advertising that
about that group and their supporters.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)hardships they have in fighting back. That doesn't mean they won't or should
not try..it is a very difficult position to be in when you are not in support for
such laws.
You do what you can to bring attention to the problem.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. boils down to.. 'Cause GUNZ!!!!'
Should you be able to sue Ford because some drunk rear-ended you?
Should you be able to sue Joe-Bob's Ford-o-Rama on East Maple and Greene?
No? Then why should you be able to sue Bushmaster or Bud's Guns?
'CAUSE GHUNZ!! DAT'S WHY!!!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)different regulations.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Again, it boils down to.. "CAUZ GHUNZ!!"
I would say you should bone up on the subject, but as I see from other replies, you've already been schooled and keep burying your head in the sand.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)what was already legal precedent regarding other legal products. It doesn't matter who the manufacturers advocate was to get the legislation passed. Yes, you are being deliberately obtuse regarding this issue.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Who made sure any challenges to that rationale would fail? The NRA and their affiliates.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Case law has made manufacturers immune from liability for criminal misuse of their legal products by 3rd parties. Firearm manufacturers are simply being afforded the same protections as manufacturers of other legal products; this protection was codified into law as a result of ill-advised lawsuits against firearms manufacturers filed solely in an attempt to drive them out of business. Firearms manufacturers are being afforded the same status and manufacturers of any other legal product.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)of the gun culture in the US. That it is a reality does not mean it should not be
challenged, and as the gun lobby is so strong, groups such as the Brady Center
do what they can to push for attention to that alleged " fairness " you speak
of.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)All are legal products. All afforded the same protection under the law. Equal protection. It's not a matter of "gun culture". The fact that you find firearms "icky" doesn't mean their manufacturers should be held to a different legal standard that manufacturers of other legal products.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)should be challenged, as military grade weapons and ammo are not the same as
cars, beer and screwdrivers.
The challenge is an uphill battle due to the efforts of the NRA and their affiliates.
To suggest the status quo is in place because it is reasonable and bears merit
is more than highly debatable.
You're fortunate to have the luxury of such hard working lobby groups.
The families of victims have next to no recourse.
Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA ( Re-post from 2013 )
How the Gun-Rights Lobby Won After Newtown
December 10, 2013, 4:15 pm ET by Sarah Childress
snip* A New Gun-Rights Power
In January, President Obama announced 23 executive actions intended to strengthen the enforcement of existing gun laws. Last month, he touted some progress, including improving the national background-check database and appointing a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a post that’s been vacant for seven years.
But the administration’s major effort to pass what would have been the most sweeping reform in nearly two decades — new legislation that would have expanded background checks to include gun shows and online sales — failed within months in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The legislation was staunchly opposed by gun-rights groups, including a powerful newcomer in the federal arena.
The National Association for Gun Rights, or NAGR, which considers itself to the right of the powerful NRA, spent nearly $6 million in lobbying this year through September 2013 — more than double what the NRA paid out and far more than any other group on either side of the debate.
The NAGR was founded in 2001, but until this year it focused mainly on advocacy, keeping local groups apprised of gun legislation in their states. The source of its funding isn’t clear because as a 501(c)4, the NAGR isn’t required to disclose its backers.
The group’s leadership has ties to former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The group’s executive vice president, Dudley Brown, declined to talk to FRONTLINE for this story. But earlier this year, Brown told the Center for Responsive Politics that the Sandy Hook shooting prompted the group to get involved on the federal level.
remainder in full: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/newtown-divided/how-the-gun-rights-lobby-won-after-newtown/
0
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)You can thank Sen. Diane Feinstein for killing any chance for universal background checks (UBC) after Newtown when she immediately started yapping about another assault weapons ban and poisoned the well.
What exactly is "Military Grade" ammunition? Holmes bought standard rifle/pistol/shotgun rounds; nothing "military grade" about them. His shotgun and handgun were standard civilian item; the AR model rifle is a standard semi-automatic rifle and is currently the most popular center-fire rifle being purchased.
The challenge is an uphill battle because the majority of the public are not interested in more gun control laws being passed and do not see any logic in holding firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of their legal products by 3rd parties.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)the like minded.
I know who is predominately responsible.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)are "Like Minded"? Glad to hear that.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)trying to pass any legislation not supported by the majority of the people. Just sayin'.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The Supreme Court is not on your side, the law is not on your side and public opinion is not on your side. 20+ years with no meaningful legislation regarding gun-control laws. The trend is moving in the opposite direction.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Thanks for the good wishes.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)the reason the law is not on your side is that the public does not support your ideas.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Ok.
Have a good night..I am done here.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)to explain why their "great ideas" never come to fruition; I suppose yours is the NRA. I plan to have a great night knowing my rights are being supported.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...from voting the way that controllers claim they want to.
That lot never has explained that small detail...
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)I'm not saying it's Aliens;
but......it's Aliens! 
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...combined. Which, logically, would mean- *gasp*:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
See also the quote from a high Southern Baptist official above:
In an interview, Moore told The Huffington Post that one of the movement's main mistakes in the gay marriage fight was assuming traditionalists would always have public opinion on their side. Social conservatives didn't anticipate or prepare for the dramatic turnabout in national sentiment on this issue over the last 10 years, he said, assuming they'd always operate from a position of strength in the culture war. They believed that fundamentally, Americans shared their values...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...about as well as water and sodium metal do...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Seeing that the NRA is worth maybe 2-3% of Michael Bloomberg's personal
wealth, and if the political process is as corrupt as you claim it is-
then why isn't Bloomberg (along with the other gun control .orgs) mopping
the floor with them?
Face it- your cause is nowhere near as popular as you'd like us to believe it is.
I also note that you've been less than forthcoming about one
of the phrases you like to toss around. We've yet to hear:
1) In your own words, what, exactly "military grade" even means, and
2) Why civilians shouldn't have what you've deemed to be military grade...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)What I personally think is the definition of weapons grade weapons is irrelevant, and
as I said, that was part of the argument in the lawsuit.
The link I gave you, it is not correct..no need for a lobby according to you. Interesting, it's
a conspiracy theory...all the gun violence is subject to other reasons too, I imagine.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You can add this one too:
12/2012
Explaining the power of the National Rifle Association, in one graph
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, one of the emerging debates is whether there will even be a debate. Past mass shootings have come and gone without any action. Many argue that the reason for this inaction is simple: politicians have been afraid to take on the National Rifle Association, the large and influential pro-gun lobby that spent at least $18.6 million this past election cycle - $11.1 million through its Political Victory Fund, plus $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action.
As CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer put it, “Congress is literally afraid to take on the National Rifle Association because they know that if they make any kind of statement [that] even suggests some sort of limits on gun control, the NRA is going to pour, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars in a campaign to defeat them."
(Read about the 51 percent of lawmakers in the 113th Congress who have received campaign contributions from the NRA)
Here are the data: The NRA has spent 73 times what the leading pro-gun control advocacy organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has spent on lobbying in the 112th Congress ($4.4 million to $60,000, through the second quarter of 2012), and 3,199 times what the Brady Campaign spent on the 2012 election ($18.6 million to $5,816). (One caveat on the data is that the NRA itself does a very poor job of accurately reporting its spending, and we must rely on its self-reports.)
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/12/17/gun-spending/
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Also, there's this:
http://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/
2015 RANKING REAL TIME RANKING
Michael Bloomberg
#14 Michael Bloomberg
Follow (1,064)
Real Time Net Worth As of 7/2/15
$36.6 Billion
CEO, Bloomberg
A cynic might get the idea that you lot are being toyed with by an extremely rich 'leader'...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I should take it, when the fall of the NRA lobby comes to be and all its sub groups,
you won't be concerned in the least. Alrighty.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The same Brady Camapign that can't even come up with 1/20th of the NRA's membership?
Or will it be the multibillionaire's vanity group?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)According to you, they're irrelevant..a conspiracy theory and all that.
Still no response to my question...oh well.
Have a great evening.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Without knowing your definition of the subject matter is, there can never be a "meeting of the minds". Military grade has a specific meaning in law, if yours is different then that needs to be known and the differences worked out.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The lawsuit cannot challenge the laws because they are a malignant mess
suited by the NRA and the Brady Center has little recourse in these cases,
that is my complaint.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Easy answer, change the law.
Good Luck on this endeavor.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Changing the many laws designed by the NRA needs to be challenged.
I believe that will happen with the end of lobby money allowed in our
political system. Until then lawsuits like this will challenge the rationale
of these protections as best they can...bringing attention to the problems.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Crying about the NRA and how all manufacturers should be allowed to be sued out of business.
So good luck.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)data supporting my position.
I'm not crying btw, just pointing out the obvious.
Thank you for the good wishes, we'll need it but we'll get there eventually.
Hopefully before more innocent people are slaughtered.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The model of 'the MSM decides what the masses should be "concerned" about, and
*maybe* they'll throw in a quote or two from the opposition' is busted.
The gun control folks need to realize that this isn't the early Eighties and modeling
themselves after Tipper Gore's PMRC won't work anymore.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The families of victims of gun violence are forever in your debt.
hack89
(39,171 posts)even though handguns are primarily civilian weapons? You are not playing fast and loose with definitions to make a point are you?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)and should have equal protection under the law. I don't agree, there is no other
purpose to guns, therefore there should be different restrictions.
The point of the lawsuit was to bring accountability to gun dealers, they
failed to do so b/c they have lobbied for protection. My position is that
these weapons are not equivalent to cars and nor even to liquor.
No legislation that is meaningful passes due to the NRA and their supporters.
You benefit from that lobby system, those opposed have little recourse,
and why you see groups such as the Brady Center trying to bring attention
to that disconnect.
In fact, the plaintiffs in the case - parents of one of the victims - were ordered to pay the ammunition companies' legal fees because of a special carve-out in Colorado law for the gun industry.
On July 20, 2012, a man wearing body armor and carrying an arsenal of firearms and tear gas fatally shot 12 people and wounded 58 others during a midnight screening at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. The Brady Center subsequently filed a lawsuit against companies that had supplied the gunman, on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter, Jessica Ghawi, was killed in the shooting.
The lawsuit alleged that Lucky Gunner and several other companies had negligently supplied the gunman with thousands of rounds of ammunition, body armor, a high-capacity drum magazine that could hold 100 rounds of ammunition, and canisters of tear gas.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/30/conservative-reporter-misrepresents-court-decis/204203
hack89
(39,171 posts)lets start with a common definition before we decide what is greater threat to society.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)as they exist today, have no recourse due to the NRA.
Military grade can be less powerful as it can offer more control, yet that
in no way makes the online sales appropriate.
You can spend all day discussing which is " safer " I will spend my time
working to defeat the ability of the NRA to have a lobby.
hack89
(39,171 posts)hobbies are good.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The NRA is not all powerful. Last I heard there were about 5 million NRA members so I'd think that if you want something done you regarding gun control you could make it happen.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)How the Gun-Rights Lobby Won After Newtown
December 10, 2013, 4:15 pm ET by Sarah Childress
snip* A New Gun-Rights Power
In January, President Obama announced 23 executive actions intended to strengthen the enforcement of existing gun laws. Last month, he touted some progress, including improving the national background-check database and appointing a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a post that’s been vacant for seven years.
But the administration’s major effort to pass what would have been the most sweeping reform in nearly two decades — new legislation that would have expanded background checks to include gun shows and online sales — failed within months in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The legislation was staunchly opposed by gun-rights groups, including a powerful newcomer in the federal arena.
The National Association for Gun Rights, or NAGR, which considers itself to the right of the powerful NRA, spent nearly $6 million in lobbying this year through September 2013 — more than double what the NRA paid out and far more than any other group on either side of the debate.
The NAGR was founded in 2001, but until this year it focused mainly on advocacy, keeping local groups apprised of gun legislation in their states. The source of its funding isn’t clear because as a 501(c)4, the NAGR isn’t required to disclose its backers.
The group’s leadership has ties to former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The group’s executive vice president, Dudley Brown, declined to talk to FRONTLINE for this story. But earlier this year, Brown told the Center for Responsive Politics that the Sandy Hook shooting prompted the group to get involved on the federal level.
remainder in full: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/newtown-divided/how-the-gun-rights-lobby-won-after-newtown/
0
hack89
(39,171 posts)using typical civilian hunting or self defense ammo in war would be a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions. That is because it is designed to expand to maximize killing power. Military ammo has to be fully jacketed to minimize bullet expansion.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Controllers prevaricate, distort and fabricate as a modus operandi. They toss around weasel words then, when called on it, claim they are being taken out of context.
What weapons did Holmes carry that is military grade?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)
You know very well what weapons he used, so why waste your time pretending?
The lawsuit was brought to confront the bullshit laws we have that give an idiot
like him the privilege to buy online.
The Brady Center does not possess the power of the NRA, they confront as best
they can to bring attention to their cause...falls on many deaf ears in the US.
On edit: I have it on good authority the rifle was not federally restricted in the
manner I had stated...my mistake.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)After his "mall-ninja" magazine jammed, he switched to the pump-action shotgun. You know, that "military-grade" weapon that is so evil. 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)1) In your own words, what, exactly "military grade" even means, and
2) Why civilians shouldn't have what you've deemed to be military grade...
So every single gun and all ammo is milspec?
But what does "military grade weapons and ammo" actually mean?
You do know that milspec ammo is actually less lethal than civilian ammo?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Because you never did and are very good at changing the subject.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have read the thread and saw those simple questions asked politely and you refusing to answer but changing the subject. To me it is rude not to answer a simple question asked to a person.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The business did nothing wrong and was rightly exonerated. If you bring a frivolous lawsuit then you pay the opposing party's fees.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)problem.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Or perhaps not. But the fact is that this was a legal transaction, and the company that sold a legal product in a legal manner cannot be sued, and should not be amenable to suit.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Which amounts to a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding...so they do what they can to push back
through the courts.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)in violation of the established law they can pay the legal bills of the defendant as mandated by law. Equal protection. Simple.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)their affiliates.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Fascinating. I'd be interested in hearing why you suppose this tactic will work...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)should not try..unless the case is do able? Bringing attention to why they lost
is important because the laws are stacked up in favor of the NRA..so they try
and get the attention they would otherwise not receive.
Oh well. another mass shooting in the US..ho hum.
This is what Americans believe is rational and objective equal protection under
the law..selling military grade weapons and ammo online is the same as selling cars and beer?
No, these companies have this protection because they bought and paid for it:
In fact, the plaintiffs in the case - parents of one of the victims - were ordered to pay the ammunition companies' legal fees because of a special carve-out in Colorado law for the gun industry.
On July 20, 2012, a man wearing body armor and carrying an arsenal of firearms and tear gas fatally shot 12 people and wounded 58 others during a midnight screening at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. The Brady Center subsequently filed a lawsuit against companies that had supplied the gunman, on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter, Jessica Ghawi, was killed in the shooting.
The lawsuit alleged that Lucky Gunner and several other companies had negligently supplied the gunman with thousands of rounds of ammunition, body armor, a high-capacity drum magazine that could hold 100 rounds of ammunition, and canisters of tear gas.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/30/conservative-reporter-misrepresents-court-decis/204203
hack89
(39,171 posts)would you change your tune? Or is just about the guns for you?
EX500rider
(10,833 posts)lol, no "if" about it....about 32,000 people die in car crashes per year....about 300 to 400 get shot by ANY type of rifle, of which "assault rifles" are a sub-sect. So cars are about 100 times more deadly then rifles.
(just pointing that out, I realize you probably already know that hack)
-none
(1,884 posts)Automobiles are not manufactured to kill people as guns are. Comparing the two is just a diversion from the fact of this country's outrageous gun deaths, far in excess of any other industrialized country.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)There are two phrases with which you should familiarize yourself:
'Inanimate object' and 'Human agency'. Look them up sometime...
-none
(1,884 posts)That is the basic purpose of guns. To kill living things.
Cars, on the other hand, are built and sold as for the purpose of transportation. Can you see the difference here?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Most guns aren't used to kill, as most gun owners are neither hunters nor murderers
Cars aren't designed to kill, yet tens of thousands of people yearly are killed by them
Those unfortunates are no less dead than gunshot victims
Once again, neither guns nor cars will do anything unless until a person uses them, for good or ill
-none
(1,884 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)But that's okay- Article V of the Constitution explains how you can go about
altering or eliminating the Second Amendment. Get back with us when you've
persuaded two-thirds of both the U.S. Senate and House, and 38 state legislatures
to agree with you, mmkay?
-none
(1,884 posts)Just revisit one court case, or bring another one that the Supreme Court can decide correctly.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yet all the antis are screaming about this very reasonable commonsense restriction placed on the right to sue.
You didn't think gun rights supporters would forever be on the receiving end of that line of argument, did you?
EX500rider
(10,833 posts)And guns are designed to do one thing, propel a slug down a barrel at high speed. What ones does with that is a personal choice. 99% of the time that would be to poke holes in paper targets as a hobby.
-none
(1,884 posts)I often see deaths caused by a certain kind of firearm or the deaths themselves discounted because of whatever the excuse of the day is.
The point is to make it look like the the number of gun related deaths are not as high as they really are. That is called fudging the numbers, to make things look better than they really are. A gun death, is any death inflicted using a gun, regardless of the reason.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)There are pretty thorough histories on how a storefront operations like the Brady Center and other like organizations roared like lions as long as MSM was the man behind the curtain. Maybe the Brady folks relied too much on MSM, esp. as it declined from the 90s, while pro-2A groups like the NRA, always strong, became grassroots juggernauts.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)If someone bought an original Humvee that meets all street vehicle regulations and decided to drive it into a crowd to kill and injure, one doesn't get to sue AM General for selling that vehicle because it was "military grade".
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)The reason gun manufacturers got the federal protection is because Brady was going around suing manufacturers in SLAPP suits. They knew they'd lose the lawsuits but was hoping the manufactures would have to spend enough defending themselves they'd go bankrupt/out of business.
No one is purposefully trying to sue a car manufacturer out of business for the actions of a third party, that's why there was no extra legal protection against such suits.
Brady knew they'd lose this suit, yet encouraged the plaintiffs to file suit. The Brady Campaign should cover the cost.
Mugu
(2,887 posts)The theater exercised their right to disallow lawful concealed carry permit holders the ability to protect themselves while on the premises. However, since they chose to deny lawful persons the ability to defend themselves, they (the theater) must assume the responsibility to ensure that no illegal weapons enter the premises.
Many like to holler that lawmakers pass laws making it legal to carry weapons in public, but then restrict weapons in government buildings. However, notice that courthouses and many other governmental facilities have metal detectors and armed guards to ensure that no weapons enter the premises.
hack89
(39,171 posts)What are they expected to do in this case? He would have passed any background check.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)what indications did any particular company have that that Holmes was going to commit a mass shooting? They sold legal products in a legal manner - how can they be blamed for his subsequent actions?
-none
(1,884 posts)Why didn't it? A text book example of why ALL gun purchases need to go through a registered gun dealer. The list of sudden background checks and what he bought, would have flagged Holmes for questioning.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they clearly did not have the authority or even the ability to screen Holmes to determine that he was a danger.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)The gun companies involved follow the law perfectly. Had they not, then their lawsuit would have had merit.
petronius
(26,602 posts)wouldn't surprise if there was a private deal to do so in place from the beginning), then maybe gun control advocates will put together a GoFundMe campaign or something similar... 
pintobean
(18,101 posts)They gave bad and costly advice, and used a victim's grieving family to try to advance their agenda.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,336 posts)Or is that some sort of protected quasi-government organization?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)In fact, the plaintiffs in the case - parents of one of the victims - were ordered to pay the ammunition companies' legal fees because of a special carve-out in Colorado law for the gun industry.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If you sue someone for negligence and then fail to prove said negligence, it should come as no surprise that you're going to have to cover their legal costs. Hopefully the Brady Center, who I suspect encouraged the grieving parents in this, pony up.
Orrex
(63,189 posts)In a dark and crowded theater full of tear gas and screaming patrons, these brave protectors of the innocent would have stood up calmly and easily dispatched the assailant.
The ruling is bullshit but apparently within the scope of the stupid law. But why the hell would the Phillips family be liable for the defendants' attorney fees, if the The Brady Center filed the suit in the first place? Why wouldn't The Brady Center be liable instead?
petronius
(26,602 posts)they were closely involved in it...
This I think is the original lawsuit: http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/PhillipsvsLuckyGunner.pdf
On edit (and with the caveat that I am not an attorney nor really qualified to interpret this): the order awarding the fees makes it sound as though the attorneys for the plaintiffs could perhaps also have been responsible for the fees, but it wasn't asked properly:
The named plaintiffs have active roles in the Brady Center as shown in the attachments to LuckyGunner’s reply and in press releases from the Brady Center heralding the filing of their lawsuit and identifying three of its lawyers as representing the plaintiffs. Two of those attorneys attended oral argument on the defendants’ motions and signed pleadings filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the attorneys from Arnold & Porter.
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 where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order which counsel should have known would be outside the authority of this court.
LuckyGunner has made the argument that because this civil action was a meritless “political lawsuit,” plaintiffs’ counsel should have joint liability for the fees and costs. The procedural requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c) have not been followed and for this court to take the initiative to issue an order to show cause under Rule 11(c)(3) would prolong this matter which is on appeal. Ruling now on these fee applications may enable any disagreements to be added to the issues on appeal.
...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...within miles that banned guns for non-cops.
And who's to say a CCL holder could not have stopped him?
Initech
(100,054 posts)Fuck guns, fuck the NRA. Those families deserve better. 
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 1, 2015, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participationaikoaiko
(34,165 posts)Its really sad how they are dragging them through this legal ordeal.
Hopefully the Brady Center is honorable with their own and pays this debt off.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Fuck those Lawyers who decided to encourage the family to sue.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)And jail all lawyers. Lawsuit should not have been filed. Did their lawyers advise them of this risk? If not, maybe they should sue them.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)yet you call yourself PowerToThePeople. The irony is thick.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)silly. If the suit was successful then you'd be cheering the lawyers that brought it.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Or maybe not.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) beevul
(12,194 posts)
I consider myself reminded.
sarisataka
(18,554 posts)Or let the People decide?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)1. How are you going to get this passed in Congress
2. How do you think this will hold up to judicial scrutiny
3. How are you going to get ALL 50 states to comply
4. What are you going to do when states refuse to comply
5. What are you going to do when the local police refuse to enforce the law*
6. What are you going to do when people refuse to comply**
* CO, NY and WA police departments have publicly stated they would not/will not enforce the recent laws passed in those states
**While it is, for obvious reasons, impossible to get hard numbers, the laws passed in NY and CT have resulted in widespread non compliance with gun owners refusing to register the firearms and/or magazines as required by law.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I dream of starting at wide receiver for the Pats, which is just about as likely to happen...
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)passed and enforced. Damn those troublesome details!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)The cops that refuse to enforce the law should be removed from the force for negligence of duties. This is not an unchangable situation.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I don't think you've thought your clever plan quite all the way through...
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Since the Sheriff is normally an elected position, somehow I doubt the state has any legal standing to remove them from their position.
Expect massive non-compliance nationwide from the rural and many suburban police forces as well as the state police and many state governments.
What you propose has ZERO chance of passing nationwide. Get back to us when you have proposals based in reality.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)How do we handle law breakers? Fines and/or incarceration.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)probably because you have no realistic plan (or chance for that matter) of getting your ideas passed.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If you ban guns and jail lawyers who is going to affect arrests, try the lawbreakers and guard them?
I really don't believe you have thought this through.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)The police that the Left routinely hates on? Or is it the New Police who will be only comprised of Leftists?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)It's unfortunate that the family got such bad advice.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)When a civil suit (especially a frivolous looking one) is brought, the plaintiff will often pay if the suit is lost or dismissed.
Emotionalizing the law will just lead to disappointment. This is normal and absolutely correct.
sarisataka
(18,554 posts)The Brady Center encourages a couple to to file a suit, knowing full well it will fail under PLCAA. Since Brady Center did not file as plaintiffs, the couple will be on the hook for legal costs.
Horrible! Travesty! Taking advantage of the grieving!
But wait, who are these poor people?
It takes a bit of digging but:
Operations Manager at Brady Campaign & Center to Prevent Gun Violence
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lonnie-phillips/16/a/722
They are two of the Brady Campaign managers?
Well this should be easy- let's check on the BC's Spokespeople:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/spokespeople
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
HomeAccess denied
Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.
Set up? A case which will clearly fail and it just happens the plaintiffs are managers at the Brady Campaign? But Brady does not join as co-Plaintiffs?
Coincidence I'm sure...
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)
legal fees for some nonsensical vanity game of gotcha?
Go sue BIC or the corner market when someone uses a lighter to commit arson and see what happens.
They shouldn't have been falling for the con job from Brady. Sub in any other product for a gun and the "logic" melts quicker than a popsicle in August.
Causz gunz! is no basis for a lawsuit. I have yet to make a lick of sense of the entire thought process in play with this whole little movement other than some lame brained effort at a backdoor ban.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Call 1-666-GET-PAID.
Jobs and money for personal injury attorneys. I understand the importance of the good work they do. Just saying this is also part of the motivation for wanting to sue gun makers.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)How about suing the criminally derelict parents of that little shit?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It was wrong and stupid to sue them in the first place. Might as well sue UPS for shipping them to his house.
The guy bought, from different manufacturers and vendors, and at different times, a lot of stuff. And the vendors had no reason to not sell him anything.
What did he buy? A popular make of the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the U.S. A popular pump-action shotgun. A very popular brand of handgun. And ammunition for all of them.
Shocking.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A couple other posts in this thread have made the same assertion, but I'm too lazy to go back and reply to each one.
The normal rule in the United States (federal courts and every state court system, as far as I know) is that each party bears its own legal fees, regardless of who wins. There are provisions for shifting certain other costs. For example, in New York state courts, if you take a witness's testimony before the trial (so as not to be surprised at trial), you'll pay a court reporter to produce a written transcript of the questions and answers. If you win the case, you can force the losing party to reimburse you for that expense. The fee you paid your lawyer, however, usually can't be reimbursed.
One common exception is that, if one party asserts a frivolous claim or defense, the opposing party can obtain judgment for the legal fees it expended in resisting that frivolous position. Different systems have different levels of willingness to do this. To take New York again (because that's where I practice), both state and federal courts have such rules, but you can get away with stuff in state court that, in federal court, would draw an award of attorney's fees.
Another exception is that certain statutes provide for attorney's fees in limited circumstances, such as for a prevailing plaintiff in some civil rights actions.
In the Colorado case, the linked article doesn't say that the fee award was based on a finding of frivolous conduct. Instead, it's unclear. There's a reference to a Colorado statute that gives favorable treatment to gun defendants but I don't know whether they have to show that the case was frivolous.
The basic point is that, contrary to widespread but mistaken belief, there's no general rule that the loser pays the winner's legal fees. In an ordinary automobile-accident case, for example, there's almost never an award of attorney's fees.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I'm QC inspector by trade, so I appreciate your comments.
Is it possible the lawyers billed $200k to the plaintiffs for the time and that's what the article refers to?
Could it be the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce (or whatever it's called) mandates or offers that kind of reimbursement?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I skimmed the court's decision. The judge cited a couple of Colorado statutes that provide for a fee award to a prevailing defendant under certain circumstances. (The case was in federal court, but the state law was applicable.)
If you don't want to read the opinion, this Thompson Reuters story gives more detail than the OP's linked item from Media Matters. (Media Matters is correct, however, in reporting the award as $203,000. The judge made some reductions to the defendants' fee requests. I think the $220,000 in the Thompson Reuters story was the request, not the award.)
It's clear that this was not a bill for services rendered to the plaintiffs. They were represented pro bono by the Denver office of Arnold & Porter, a well-known D.C.-based law firm (link).
As an irrelevant aside, this judge is a Nixon appointee who presided over the trial of the Oklahoma City bombing defendants, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)There was no auto accident or anything like it. They for all intents and purposes sued the corner gas station because someone used fuel to commit arson.
The lawsuit was as stupid as fuck with little better logical basis than suing you or me and just as ridiculous as suing Jones Soda because someone hit you with one of the bottles they sold.
They are victims of an extraordinarily stretched rationale fueled by emotion.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In federal court, a fee award against a party that engages in frivolous conduct is allowed under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this instance, however, the judge expressly disclaimed any reliance on Rule 11. In the judge's decision, he wrote:
The award was instead based on specific Colorado statutes. I haven't researched those statutes but my understanding from the decision in this case is that Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-504.5(3) provides for a mandatory fee award to a prevailing "firearms or ammunition manufacturer, importer, or dealer" under certain circumstances, whether or not the case was frivolous.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)"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 where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order which counsel should have known would be outside the authority of this court."
If that statute was unavailable then there is every reason to believe the broader one would have been applied instead.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Consider Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision against segregated public schools. When that case was brought you could argue that it was meritless, because there was a Supreme Court decision (Plessy v. Ferguson) that was directly on point and that allowed "separate but equal" treatment. If the Court had adhered to Plessy, that could be taken as confirmation that the school desegregation case was meritless.
As I understand contemporary Rule 11 standards, though, a case like that wouldn't be sanctioned as frivolous even if it lost on the merits. There was a good-faith argument for overruling Plessy. In the Colorado case, if the procedural requirements for presenting the issue of "frivolous conduct" had been fulfilled, which they were not, the court might well have concluded that the expansion of firearms liability was not justified but that seeking it was not frivolous. It's also possible that, as you speculate, absent the Colorado statutes expressly requiring the fee award, the issue of frivolous conduct would have been presented to the court under Rule 11 and would have been decided against the plaintiffs. The point I'm making is that that didn't happen, so it's not accurate to say that the fee award was made because the case was deemed frivolous.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I appreciate your recognition that reasonable people can disagree. DU would be a much better place if more people understood that.
locks
(2,012 posts)are manufactured for only one purpose: to kill.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)no matter what the motive for the obstruction is - big tobacco is the worst example of this
so if gun victims having to pay damages to gun nuts bothers you, take a closer look at these trade bills
samsingh
(17,594 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Here's how the case came about:
I have to believe that a major law firm and the Brady Center knew about -- and advised the Phillipses about -- the Colorado statutes that seek to intimidate plaintiffs from bringing such suits by providing a fee award to a prevailing defendant. The risk of such an award would have been obvious. Probably the Brady Center agreed in advance to cover any fee award made against the Phillipses.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)There's more info here http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2015/04/well-this-sheds-new-light-on-things.html?m=1
Forgive the source, but they have links to their LinkedIn.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)there should be automatic open carry because at one time we all could do that
just look at history ---- wild west
-none
(1,884 posts)When you came into town you checked your guns with the sheriff, or you were strongly told to leave.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I suppose the lawsuit lottery didn't pay off as expected...
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Will never be applied to this issue. If 20 children being shot execution style could not get reasonable firearm control enacted nothing will.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And will land you in jail. Maybe all the controllers should volunteer to do their time.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)the days when the Confederate flag was flown in ugly hatred and contempt of black citizens. Hell, I remember going to segregated schools and riding on segregated buses. It was just the way it was and there would never be enough of us progressives to make a difference.
THINGS DO CHANGE in this country. Eventually, we will join the rest of the civilized world when it comes to sensible gun safety policies and laws.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Consider to be "sensible gun safety policies and laws"?
Response to TeddyR (Reply #223)
CTyankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I'm asking you what you would propose with respect to gun control. Magazine limits? Universal background checks? "Assault weapon" bans? What do YOU propose? I'm aware of many proposals, from background checks to confiscation, but I want you to take a position and explain how it solves the problem.
Response to TeddyR (Reply #226)
CTyankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
I thought you were the controller who wanted to take away guns. If that's not the case then I apologize. My proposals don't involve taking away guns from law abiding citizens. You want to decrease gun deaths, then focus on social equality and a quality education for everyone as a starting point. Let's work to solve the root problems instead of blaming an inanimate object.
Response to TeddyR (Reply #230)
CTyankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...you are not likely to get them.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)CTyankee
(63,900 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)You refuse to answer a simple direct question. Do you really think you can fool people with bluster alone? I'd be happy to answer the question that you've been asked.
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If you cannot elucidate your ideas on a message board, you have absolutely no
hope of achieving anything in the real world
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)CTyankee
(63,900 posts)I was talking about some difficult, some thought insurmountable, projects and views that were once seen as impossible and how those came about eventually. Your efforts seem to be limited to holding back the dam waters of change, resistance to progress on ending gun violence and simply yelling "what's your solution!!" instead of saying "I'd be willing and happy to work on solutions" and list some of your own. Instead, we get the same old tired "pesky 2nd A," using that pat phrase to automatically dismiss anything that will do anything to change the status quo. Let's amend the amendment. How would you craft that language?
My point -- and I am happy to elucidate it further -- is that this kind of nay saying has been going on all throughout history, not only here but throughout the world.
"Nah, can't be done."
I could go on but you get the picture.
Now, back to the question and I'll let you tell me what your plans are to promote better gun safety in our country. Are there any ideas that European nations have that we could use here? So far you have not put forth any. Why not?
And the irony of your sig line quoting an American hero who himself was the victim of gun violence is not lost on me.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...followed by implications that you are owed (for some some unspecified and un-agreed to
reason) a detailed response from me?
No. I believe I have already given your posts all the attention they deserve, and more.
For those unfamiliar with the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glittering_generality
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)That's the intelligent, studied opinion of liberal criminologists on the issue. (Wright, Rossi, Kleck etc.)
Of course that takes real work rather than infantile bluster and blaming.
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)that aside and ask you to contribute those ideas here. Unless it's too much real work...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I hope you *do* realize that it's rather rude to demand responses from others
that you, yourself refuse to give...
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)CTyankee
(63,900 posts)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's more "Discussion" than actual "Activism", so you should fit in nicely...
CTyankee
(63,900 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)CTyankee
(63,900 posts)
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #273)
CTyankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts).....and what you prove by dodging a request for information that you (hypocritically) demand from others.
With regard - once again - to ideas in dealing with gun violence......your solutions?
Tick...tock, tick...tock, tick...tock, tick...tock, tick...tock, tick...tock, tick...tock..........
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)“Kleck isn’t regarded as a liberal by any liberals I know.”
Well – you’re quite the clever boy now, aren’t you? Sneaking in a smear while transparently distancing yourself from it by attributing it to “liberals I know”. The only thing you’ve accomplished in demonstrating here is that you associate with dishonest ideologues, and/or are yourself dishonorable. Birds of a feather……..
I’ve dealt with this lie before – feel free to provide evidence that Dr. Gary Kleck is anything but what he claims to be. Hint: employing the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy doesn’t count. (As in “Kleck can’t be a liberal because he’s not singing the company tune on “gun control”.) See link below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1123890
Now with regard to my ideas on solving gun violence, if you were honestly paying attention my affirmative response to Teddy R’s sane comment would have given you a big hint on where I stand:
“You want to decrease gun deaths, then focus on social equality and a quality education for everyone as a starting point.”
Why on earth would you think that I’d avoid offering up my ideas on solving gun violence when I essentially invited you to ask? It appears from my perspective that what you do best is destroy your own credibility w/regard to discussion of all issues.
The tragic fact about the relationship between the Democratic Party and gun violence is that we have lied so egregiously, so long, and so unrepentantly that it will take AT LEAST a generation TO BEGIN to be in a position to regain trust on this issue. So first and foremost, we have to stop the bleeding by discontinuing our lying. The only two issues relating to “gun control” on the party platform relate to “assault weapons” and “gun show loopholes”. Both of these issues are built on direct lies and misleading “facts”. This ruins our credibility GENERALLY, and poisons the well for any productive dialog. It is a most egregious LIE that gun owners are primarily responsible for the gridlock in dialog w/regard to gun restriction.
There are a number of things the Democratic Party could do right away to improve the current situation, but I don’t see them happening in the near term:
1) Remove “assault weapon” and “gun show loophole” lies from party platform.
2) Substitute universal background checks, and improved law enforcement data sharing in their place.
3) Swear off forever - FORMALLY - any intent at firearm banning/confiscation. This would be tricky, since “assault weapons” angst has everything to do with the lie that weapons that look like military weapons necessarily function like them. Of course most gun owners wouldn’t trust the statement given our historic dishonesty, but it would be a good opening symbolic gesture. Democrats in general would need to stop conflating “assault weapons” and assault rifles -- since this is the functional equivalent of supporting bans.
It is well beyond tragic to me that we have reduced our political capital as we have, since it hobbles our ability to get at the real cause of gun violence – poverty, hopelessness, lack of economic parity etc. The more congressional senate seats that we piss away with dishonest "gun control", the fewer that are left to fight the real villains…….like the Koch bros and their ilk. I’ll leave with this bullseye of a statement by LIBERAL criminologist James Wright - which best reflects my attitudes - and hold my breath awaiting your ideas for reducing gun violence:
And there is a sense in which violence is a public health problem. So let me illustrate the limitations of this line of reasoning with a public-health analogy. After research disclosed that mosquitos were the vector for transmission of yellow fever, the disease was not controlled by sending men in white coats to the swamps to remove the mouth parts from all the insects they could find. The only sensible, efficient way to stop the biting was to attack the environment where the mosquitos bred.
Guns are the mouth parts of the violence epidemic. The contemporary urban environment breeds violence no less than swamps breed mosquitos. Attempting to control the problem of violence by trying to disarm the perpetrators is as hopeless as trying to contain yellow fever through mandible control.
EDITED TO ADD:
Just realized that it was you, CT Yankee, that trotted out the dishonest "questioning" of Kleck's liberal bona-fides that I responded to earlier. Let the record show that you failed to back it up then.....and will in all probability fail to back it up again! How incredibly pathetic!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1123345
Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #271)
CTyankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)
Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #277)
CTyankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Again --- do you really think your fooling anyone here? I know that it must be embarrassing for you to be exposed in GD for your inability to respond to a simple, reasonable question that you have insisted others answer.....but seriously -- wouldn't just bowing out be a more sane strategy for you at this stage?
Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #280)
CTyankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #282)
CTyankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)That's your idea of offering solutions to the gun violence issue?
You know you have nothing......and now everyone following this dialog does as well.
And of course you completely dodged the issue of your smearing of an honest Democrat. Par for the filthy course.
I'll let you have the last (dishonest) word now -- won't waste any more time (for now) with Your Dishonor.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)
Peregrine
(992 posts)Their lawyers should have known that the suit would not survive a motion to dismiss.
