Skip to comments.
DC-Area Sniper Victims Sue Gun Shop and Gun Maker for Negligence (Brady Alert)
The Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence ^
| 1/16/2003
| n/a
Posted on 01/16/2003 8:39:03 AM PST by Liberal Classic
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
Here is an
Frequently Asked Questions about Conrad Johnson, et al. v. Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, et al.
This is also an intersting read.
They're suing Bushmaster, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, two part owners of Bull's Eye Brian D. Borgelt and Charles N. Carr, and (get this) John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo who caused the shooting and were aided and abetted by Bull's Eye Shooter Supply and Bushmaster.
Something makes me believe they have a bit of a problem with the definition of aiding and abetting.
Newspeak Doubleplus Ungood!
To: All
2
posted on
01/16/2003 8:39:54 AM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Liberal Classic
FREE MONEY! FREE MONEY!
3
posted on
01/16/2003 8:42:41 AM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(We've got Armadillos in our trousers. It's really quite frightening.)
To: Chad Fairbanks
What gets me is, these guys havn't even been tried, let alone found guilty in these crimes - Hey Brady! WAnna wait until guilt is proven? Talk about tainting the jury pool... any defense lawyer worth a damn will be all over this...
4
posted on
01/16/2003 8:45:28 AM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(We've got Armadillos in our trousers. It's really quite frightening.)
To: Chad Fairbanks
"FREE MONEY! FREE MONEY!"
No, no. I heard Widow Johnson herself this morning saying it was only about preventing further tragedies. I am sure she is only asking for $1 in damages. After all, it is the principle of the thing.
5
posted on
01/16/2003 8:49:58 AM PST
by
Bahbah
To: Liberal Classic
For a gun shop to have a weapon stolen, and to not be aware of it, and to not report the crime to the police and to the BATF, is clearly negligent.
If the claims are right, and Bull's Eye did "lose" 238 firearms, it's more than just a little negligent.
As for Bushmaster, continuing to supply Bull's Eye with firearms, despite the many failed BATF audits, I wasn't under the impression that BATF informed vendors of the results of the audits. Am I wrong?
From what I can see, Bull's Eye may well have acted criminally; it's certainly acted in a way that makes a trial to determine civil liability justified.
It has either knowingly supplied firearms to criminals, or it has unknowningly allowed firearms to come into the possession of criminals under circumstances where it should have known what was going on.
But Bushmaster? Unless they received a letter from the BATF advising them that Bull's Eye was violating the law, and continued to supply them with firearms, regardless, I see no grounds for negligence, or any liability at all.
The only real case of negligence I see here is on the part of the BATF.
What WERE they doing?
They spend no end of time hassling gun dealers who have done nothing wrong, yet they have a dealer who's "losing" eighty guns a year, and they do nothing?
6
posted on
01/16/2003 8:51:46 AM PST
by
jdege
To: Liberal Classic
First of all, the prime requirement for working for the Brady Center, aka Handgun Control, is being pathologically dishonest. I will not compare them to used car salesmen, because that would be grossly insulting to used car salesmen.
Furthermore, the other requirement for working for the Brady Center is being abyssmally stupid. Intelligence is totally incompatible with being a gun control hack.
7
posted on
01/16/2003 8:52:17 AM PST
by
punster
To: Liberal Classic
But the same
sh@theads filing the suit want us to "try and understand why this misunderstood child was involved with these shootings".
8
posted on
01/16/2003 8:54:01 AM PST
by
sticker
To: Liberal Classic
My first look at this raised my blood pressure........second look made me think these guys might be negligent..........third look made me realize I don't have any good information to make a judgement.
To: Liberal Classic
There may indeed be a case against the gun store. Not knowing "Waht happened" to scores of guns is negligence.
As for Bushmaster, they have no case.
10
posted on
01/16/2003 9:00:02 AM PST
by
FreeTally
(If someone with a multiple personality disorder tries to kill himself, is it a hostage situation?)
To: Chad Fairbanks
There are a lot of reasons this lawsuit is dumb, but the fact that it's filed before criminal cases are completed isn't one of them. (In many instances, although not here, a civil plaintiff would be obligated to file before criminal cases ended, or be cut off by statutes of limitation. What would you have them do - sit and wait until the person is convicted in the criminal case, and then say that's great, too bad it's too late for me to sue now?)
A complaint in a civil lawsuit, like an indictment, is just an allegation. It's not proof of anything. How in the heck does the Brady people alleging a bunch of things "taint the jury pool" when the prosecutors are alleging the very same thing? It doesn't. Go ask a defense lawyer, and you'll be told this is all completely meaningless to the criminal case. There are lots of valid reasons to blast this lawsuit - let's not make up frivolous ones.
11
posted on
01/16/2003 9:02:21 AM PST
by
foxylady
To: Liberal Classic
Don't forget to sue the car manufacturers, the gasoline manufactures, the place where they ate....
12
posted on
01/16/2003 9:03:57 AM PST
by
2banana
To: Chad Fairbanks
What gets me is, these guys havn't even been tried, let alone found guilty in these crimes - Hey Brady! WAnna wait until guilt is proven? Although I agree with your sentiments, this is just typical. The Brown's and Goldman's filed civil suit against O.J. Simpson before he ever went to trial in criminal court, and still won even after he was acquitted.
I totally disagree that law should be separated in this manner. As a matter of the criminal proceedings, if the defendant is found guilty, the victim should be allowed to gain recourse, and only if the person is found guilty. But I heavily disagree that they should be separate matters. Something is either civil, or its criminal. A person shouldn't get two chances in different courts with different thresholds of proof to "get" somebody for the same crime.
13
posted on
01/16/2003 9:04:04 AM PST
by
FreeTally
(If someone with a multiple personality disorder tries to kill himself, is it a hostage situation?)
To: FreeTally
I don't know everything about the case, either, but you can bet HCI is fluffing every bit it can get. If they were so careless as to lose twenty or fourty weapons, then I would say that is pretty good cause for a civil case against them. However, I am cautious anytime HCI gets involved, because we all know they have ulterior motives.
14
posted on
01/16/2003 9:04:26 AM PST
by
Liberal Classic
(Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
To: jdege
Unless they (Bushmaster) received a letter from the BATF advising them that Bull's Eye was violating the law, and continued to supply them with firearms, regardless, I see no grounds for negligence, or any liability at all.Exactly. The intent here is to cost Bushmaster money in having to defend itself.
15
posted on
01/16/2003 9:07:21 AM PST
by
toddst
To: jdege
I could be mistaken, but my understanding was that the BATF was unaware of the missing firearms until they traced the weapon back to them from Muhammad. At this point, Bulls Eye was unable to document the sale and BATF began digging deeper. Also, I recall, Bulls Eye sold him the rifle and Muhammad sold it back to him. Then, somehow, Muhammad came into possession of it again. It is that transaction that they could not find the paperwork for. Anyway, since none of this came to the attention of BATF until they had already been captured, it would mean that they could not have notified Bushmaster prior to the shootings because they themselves did not know. Someone with a better memory on this feel free to correct me.
So, the Brady Center is all about the money, after all? Better get some while the gettin' good.I do hope they sue RJR when dear Sara passes on....
To: Liberal Classic
Can't the NRA sue The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
for filing a frivolous lawsuit? Can we as citizens not sue
the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for something? I would ask that someone here who is a lawyer try to find a way to file a class action suit against The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. I am more than willing to donate a couple $k to get it started.
To: foxylady
Well, I'm not making up frivolous ones - the whole idea of seperate civil and criminal trials, for the same 'crime' is repugnant to me...
19
posted on
01/16/2003 9:16:49 AM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(We've got Armadillos in our trousers. It's really quite frightening.)
To: Liberal Classic
This is crapola. They should sue the "Nation of Islam" and Calypso Louie.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson