You can cast your vote and buy some ammo HERE
Posted on 06/29/2015 3:25:37 AM PDT by Zakeet
A federal judge has ordered that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence pay the legal fees of an online ammunition dealer it sued for the Aurora movie theater shooting.
[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,” Brady Center’s Legal Action Project Director Jonathan Lowy said at the time. “If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes.”
Judge Matsch disagreed with the Brady Center’s argument. He said the suit was filed for propaganda purposes. “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,” he said in his order.
[Snip]
The company said it would donate that money to a number of gun rights groups and has set up a website to allow its customers to vote on how to distribute the funds.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Well, nice to hear of at least one sane legal decision in the last while.
Wow. Matsch is a Nixon judge !
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on January 31, 1974, to a seat vacated by Olin H. Chilson. Confirmed by the Senate on March 1, 1974, and received commission on March 8, 1974. Served as chief judge, 1994-2000. Assumed senior status on July 1, 2003.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, District of Colorado, 1973-1974
Education:
University of Michigan, A.B., 1951
University of Michigan Law School, J.D., 1953
Professional Career:
U.S. Army, 1953-1955
Private practice, Denver, Colorado, 1956-1959, 1963-1965
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Colorado, 1959-1961
Deputy city attorney, City and County of Denver, Colorado, 1961-1963
Referee in bankruptcy, District of Colorado, 1965-1973
Won’t last.. It’ll get over turned on appeal.
Yep, this suit should never have been brought, the company should have just paid it and shut the hell up.
Now they are going to be hammered a second time.
Question: Sir, why do you have a pallet of 5.56 ammunition in your garage?
Answer: If Safeway puts yogurt on sale at a good price if you buy 5, do you buy only 3?
Question: But this is not yogurt.
Answer: Exactly. I can’t barter the yogurt that I don’t eat.
...it’ll get turned over on appeal...
Probably not. Attorney fees are often awarded in cases where lawsuits are harassing or frivolous. Such is the description of the Brady group.
Not the first time they have had to pay attorney fees. And, that is a factor in this decision too.
Just like a Liberal, seeking to enforce laws that don't exist, but they "feel it should".
Hmmm...just some honest clarity:
The company’s insurance paid the legal bills.
They cant donate moneys destined to reimburse the insurance company.
The company is donating their own $$.
It sounds lofty, but they could have donated their own $$ at any time...
Bump
Answer: Who the F*** are you and what the F*** are you doing in my garage?
In the matter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and self defense, the left paints the picture of a world in which if the customer fails to meet the subjective qualifying criteria and personal opinion of a store, he has every right to decline to sell you something. Stores that violate this must be sued out of existence.
In the matter of same sex marriage, the left paints the picture of a world in which if the customer fails to meet the subjective qualifying criteria and personal opinion of the store, the store has no right to politely decline to sell them the item or service in question. Stores that violate this must be sued out of existence.
Matsch doesn’t screw around in his court. He is known to be very tough.
“Yep, this suit should never have been brought, the company should have just paid it and shut the hell up.
Now they are going to be hammered a second time.”
Shirley you jest, or perhaps I don’t understand you.
Well, they will have more money to fight the second hammer with the help of ALL the sales of the product I and like minded consumers need as long as they carry it.
My post was sarcasm.
I don’t know, is it successful sarcasm, or is it failed sarcasm, if I receive a reply such as yours?
In any event, I got my tagline out there once more.
Answer: GTFO and come back with a warrant!
Well alright then. I thought at first it was sarcasm but the warning of the second hammering confused my feeble mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.