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

[Liberal Classic]

For Immediate Release: 1/16/2003

DC-Area Sniper Victims Sue Gun Shop and Gun Maker for Negligence

NRA-Backed Legislation Aims to Rob Victims of Their Rights

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced today that its Legal Action Project is filing a civil lawsuit on behalf of the families of several victims of the D.C.-area sniper against the gun dealer and manufacturer who made it possible for the snipers to terrorize the Washington, D.C. region last fall.

The suit charges Bull's Eye Shooter Supply with operating its gun shop in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of guns, including the high-power Bushmaster XM-15 E2S used by the snipers, inexplicably "disappeared" from the store. It alleges that John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, who were both legally prohibited from buying guns, could not have obtained the Bushmaster absent the gun shop's negligence.

"This assault rifle, which served the snipers' deadly purposes so well, did not fall from the sky into their hands," said Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project. "The snipers were aided and abetted by the reckless conduct of a gun shop that mysteriously 'lost' scores of deadly weapons and the manufacturer that supplied high-firepower combat guns to that dealer with no questions asked."

The suit is being filed today in the Superior Court of Pierce County, Washington on behalf of Denise Johnson, widow of Montgomery County bus driver Conrad Johnson and on behalf of the family of James L. "Sonny" Buchanan, who was gunned down mowing the lawn outside of a Rockville car dealership. Several other victims and families will be joining the lawsuit shortly, including - Rupinder "Benny" Oberoi, the first sniper victim shot with the Bushmaster as he was closing a Silver Spring liquor store; the family of Premkumar A. Walekar of Olney, who was killed while pumping gas; and the family of Hong Im Ballenger, who was killed outside of a Baton Rouge, LA beauty supply store.

In addition to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Washington, the suit names as defendants the store's owners: Brian Borgelt and Charles N. Carr; Bushmaster, Firearms, Inc., the manufacturer of the assault rifle; and the two sniper suspects themselves - Muhammad and Malvo.

Brady Center lawyers are serving as co-counsel in the case with renowned Seattle trial attorney Paul Luvera.

"We plan to show that less than three months after Bull's Eye received the Bushmaster assault rifle in its store, the firearm 'disappeared,' traveled across the country and was used in the sniper attacks," Paul Luvera said. "Such a swift 'time-to-crime' is highly indicative of grossly negligent sales and distribution practices on the part of Bull's Eye and the gun industry defendants."

The suit cites the store's shoddy recordkeeping and inventory controls, as well as its failure to promptly report missing guns to federal authorities and to adequately train its employees.

Bushmaster Firearms is charged with negligence in continuing to sell a high-firepower assault rifle designed for combat use through Bull's Eye even though the prior government audits of the gun store had revealed hundreds of missing guns. Both Bull's Eye and Bushmaster also are charged with contributing to a public nuisance.

The suit is being filed at a time when the National Rifle Association and the gun industry are seeking legislation in Congress to strip gun violence victims of their legal rights by protecting gun manufacturers and sellers from virtually all civil lawsuits. Last fall, the House of Representatives was set to vote on the NRA's Gun Industry Immunity Bill, then-numbered H.R. 2037, when the sniper shootings began. The bill was quickly pulled off the House calendar, with House Republican leaders acknowledging they did not want the vote to occur while the nation was traumatized by the sniper shootings.

This Gun Industry Immunity legislation would have blocked the lawsuit being filed today, as well as countless other suits filed by gun violence victims against reckless dealers and manufacturers. The NRA has stated that enactment of similar legislation is its top legislative priority in the new Congress.

"It is unconscionable that the gun lobby is seeking to shut the courthouse doors to the innocent victims of the sniper shootings and to other victims of gun violence across the country," said Brady Center President Michael Barnes. "This is special interest legislation at its worst. Any member of Congress who votes to immunize the gun industry should have to explain to these victims why they should be denied their day in court."

[Liberal Classic]

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!

[Support Free Republic]

Free Republic Rocks, Big Time!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Chad Fairbanks]

FREE MONEY! FREE MONEY!

[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...

[Bahbah]

"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.

[jdege]

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?

[punster]

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.

[sticker]

But the same sh@theads filing the suit want us to "try and understand why this misunderstood child was involved with these shootings".

[PeterPrinciple]

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.

[FreeTally]

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.

[foxylady]

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.

[2banana]

Don't forget to sue the car manufacturers, the gasoline manufactures, the place where they ate....

[FreeTally]

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.

[Liberal Classic]

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.

[toddst]

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.

[L_Von_Mises]

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.

[habs4ever]

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....

[samuel_adams_us]

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.

[Chad Fairbanks]

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...

[sheik yerbouty]

This is crapola. They should sue the "Nation of Islam" and Calypso Louie.