Discussion:
Woman murdered; parents sued gun dealer, lost; ordered to pay $200,000
(too old to reply)
l***@yahoo.com
2017-07-27 18:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It was the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/my-daughter-was-murdered-in-a-mass-shooting-then-i-was-ordered-to-pay-her-killers-gun-dealer/

Quote:

"...There was one experience that showed us, more than any other, how warped America’s relationship with gun violence is. It came when we decided to sue the dealer that armed our daughter’s killer. The gunman bought more than 4,000 rounds of ammunition before his shooting spree—no background check, no questions asked. But a judge dismissed our case. Gun dealers are shielded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a controversial law that protects them from liability when crimes are committed with their products.

"Worse, in accordance with the law, the judge ordered us to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees to the defendants. In part because of that ruling, Lonnie and I were forced this year to file for bankruptcy...

"...My husband and I respect the Second Amendment. We are longtime gun owners, who for 30 years made our home in Texas. We have no interest in taking away everyone’s guns, as the National Rifle Association and other fearmongers like to claim. However, we believe our nation’s laws can be vastly improved to save lives. Like most Americans, we want to see background checks on all gun sales. We want to see loopholes closed. We want to see limits on the type of gun and the amount of ammunition that can be sold to an individual..."



Lenona.
Kenny McCormack
2017-07-27 19:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
It was the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/my-daughter-was-murdered-in-a-mass-shooting-then-i-was-ordered-to-pay-her-killers-gun-dealer/
"...There was one experience that showed us, more than any other, how warped
America’s relationship with gun violence is. It came when we decided to sue the
dealer that armed our daughter’s killer. The gunman bought more than 4,000
rounds of ammunition before his shooting spree—no background check, no
questions asked. But a judge dismissed our case. Gun dealers are shielded by the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a controversial law that protects them
from liability when crimes are committed with their products.
For centuries and decades, Big Tobacco was immune to prosecution.

That has, only very recently, changed.

It is only a matter of time for Big Guns to similarly lose their immunity.

But is going to be painful for everybody until it happens.
--
Faith doesn't give you the answers; it just stops you from asking the questions.
Jake D Jude
2017-07-27 19:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kenny McCormack
Post by l***@yahoo.com
It was the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/my-daughter-was-murdered-in-a-mass-shooting-then-i-was-ordered-to-pay-her-killers-gun-dealer/
"...There was one experience that showed us, more than any other, how warped
America’s relationship with gun violence is. It came when we decided to sue the
dealer that armed our daughter’s killer. The gunman bought more than 4,000
rounds of ammunition before his shooting spree—no background check, no
questions asked. But a judge dismissed our case. Gun dealers are shielded by the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a controversial law that protects them
from liability when crimes are committed with their products.
For centuries and decades, Big Tobacco was immune to prosecution.
That has, only very recently, changed.
It is only a matter of time for Big Guns to similarly lose their immunity.
But is going to be painful for everybody until it happens.
Big Tobacco was not responsible for these idiots continuing to smoke
after being advised not to. Tobacco is not illegal.

The gun manufacturer and gun dealers are not responsible for the pieces
of shit who use these products to murder people. Guns are not illegal.

Should that change then we can start suing car manufacturers when drunk
drivers kill. Or companies that make kitchen utensils when someone
murders using a knife or fork.

Liberals are douchebags who don't believe in taking responsibility. It
is always someone else's fault.

Fuck you.
Michael OConnor
2017-07-27 19:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What were the laws in Colorado for purchasing guns and ammo at the time he bought them, if he legally purchased them? I agree with all the background checks and waiting times the law allows, and I wish there was a way to deal with the gun show loophole, if that is how he is bought the guns and ammo.

Perhaps they could come up with a way for local law enforcement to work with a third party local gun dealer to hold the guns and money in escrow for the legal amount of time and for the dealer to run the background check. This way, if the background check fails, the local dealer can notify the police and void the transaction, returning the purchaser's money and mailing the guns and ammo to the seller. If the background check is good, the local dealer can Paypal or wire the money to the seller and call the guy who bought the guns and ammo and tell him to come down and get them. This would constitute an additional third party fee for holding the items and everything, but that's the way it is. Also, it will cut down on people trying to buy guns at gun shows if they know they would fail a background check. The way I see it, everybody gets what they want in this scenario, the police, the buyer and the seller.

I feel for the couple in this case, but in the end, if the guy bought the guns and ammo legally, this is no different than trying to sue a smart phone manufacturer because somebody was texting while driving and hit your daughter and killed her.
l***@yahoo.com
2017-07-27 20:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael OConnor
I feel for the couple in this case, but in the end, if the guy bought the guns and ammo legally, this is no different than trying to sue a smart phone manufacturer because somebody was texting while driving and hit your daughter and killed her.
Um, excuse me?! Nobody texts in ORDER to kill someone while driving!

If only drivers would make a habit of throwing their phones in the back seat at ALL times, quite a few babies and toddlers would never die of heat, either, if you see what I mean. Multiple lives would be saved.


Lenona.
David Carson
2017-07-27 20:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
It was the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/my-daughter-was-murdered-in-a-mass-shooting-then-i-was-ordered-to-pay-her-killers-gun-dealer/
"...There was one experience that showed us, more than any other, how warped America’s relationship with gun violence is. It came when we decided to sue the dealer that armed our daughter’s killer. The gunman bought more than 4,000 rounds of ammunition before his shooting spree—no background check, no questions asked. But a judge dismissed our case. Gun dealers are shielded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a controversial law that protects them from liability when crimes are committed with their products.
Who wrote this, Hillary Clinton? The PLCAA is in no way, shape, or
form a special "shield" for the gun industry. It doesn't protect gun
dealers who act negligently or manufacturers who produce defective
products. Its intent and effect is to make sure that consumer
protection laws operate the same for gun manufacturers and dealers as
for every other kind of manufacturer and retailer.

Other plaintiffs sued the theater and lost, despite there being no
controversial "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Theaters Act."
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"Worse, in accordance with the law, the judge ordered us to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees to the defendants.
"The law" in this sentence isn't the law just cited in the previous
sentence, by the way.

And it looks like the judge who dismissed this claim did the
plaintiffs a favor. The lawsuit against the theater went to trial.
Those plaintiffs were ordered to pay $700,000 to the theater.
(Fortunately for them, the theater waived their right to collect it.)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"...My husband and I respect the Second Amendment. We are longtime gun owners, who for 30 years made our home in Texas. We have no interest in taking away everyone’s guns, as the National Rifle Association and other fearmongers like to claim. However, we believe our nation’s laws can be vastly improved to save lives. Like most Americans, we want to see background checks on all gun sales. We want to see loopholes closed. We want to see limits on the type of gun and the amount of ammunition that can be sold to an individual..."
How about a law that would actually make a difference? Any business or
premise that designates itself a "gun-free zone," or otherwise
prohibits the lawful carrying of firearms, must provide security
capable of dealing with an active shooter.

David Carson
J.D. Baldwin
2017-07-27 21:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gonna bend (break) a rule of mine here and discuss firearms rights
*slightly* on a group without "politics" in the name. I'll repeat my
standing offer that I am more than happy to meet anyone who thinks he
knows more about firearms policy than me in talk.politics.guns to hash
out our differences in an appropriate forum. In 25 years, I've had
one taker: he lasted for exactly two posts.
Post by David Carson
How about a law that would actually make a difference?
Every year, thousands of people perjure themselves on ATF Form 4473,
denying that they are prohibited from possessing firearms when they
are in fact prohibited: felons, non-citizens, etc. This perjury is a
serious felony, committed for the purpose of putting guns into the
hands of people prohibited by law from possessing them. Many are
stopped by the mandatory background check; many are not, and the guns
are in fact sold to felons, non-citizens, etc.

Far, far fewer than 1% of violations of this law are even *charged*,
much less actually prosecuted. This despite the fact that a
conviction on the facts is an easy slam-dunk for any AUSA out of
training pants.

So, you want a "common-sense" gun law that has an actual chance of
doing some good? Let's just start enforcing this law that's *already
on the books*. It's trivial to do; it wouldn't even require an Act of
Congress, because there already *is* such an Act. (18 USC § 922,
924)

Seems every time I see some jackass -- sorry, "concerned Mom" --
proposing "common-sense" or "reasonable" firearms laws, the
suggestions always operate to restrict freedoms of the law-abiding
without any real chance of affecting criminals' access to or use of
firearms.
Post by David Carson
Any business or
premise that designates itself a "gun-free zone," or otherwise
prohibits the lawful carrying of firearms, must provide security
capable of dealing with an active shooter.
That's going to create a legal swamp of uncertainty. Just pass a law
making "gun-free zone" venues of any kind liable for harm committed by
active shooters who take advantage of the disarmed customers. Then
sit back and watch the increased insurance premiums sort out the
problem.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Carson
2017-07-28 00:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 21:06:22 +0000 (UTC),
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by David Carson
Any business or
premise that designates itself a "gun-free zone," or otherwise
prohibits the lawful carrying of firearms, must provide security
capable of dealing with an active shooter.
That's going to create a legal swamp of uncertainty. Just pass a law
making "gun-free zone" venues of any kind liable for harm committed by
active shooters who take advantage of the disarmed customers. Then
sit back and watch the increased insurance premiums sort out the
problem.
Different way of saying the same thing - premise owners and operators who
have policies that people can't defend themselves in case someone starts
shooting should be civilly liable for what happens if someone starts
shooting. The legislatures and courts will insist - quite rightly, too -
that the owners shouldn't be liable if they take reasonable measures to
protect people, but only if they're negligent. Juries would have to decide
what "reasonable measures," are, whether it's one particularly observant
security guard by the front door, carrying a flashlight and a whistle, or
armed peace officers in all four corners of each theater. But one thing
people will learn quickly is that just putting out "no guns allowed" signs
and calling it a day will result in summary judgments against them.

I don't know many of the facts in the Aurora Cinemark lawsuit, but I think
the pivotal argument centered around whether the theater could have known
someone might be coming in to shoot the place up on that particular night
of that particular film at that particular location. If I had been on the
jury, I think I would have been pretty inclined to say "yes" a long time
before that previous sentence ended.

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com
Loading...