Posted on 01/16/2003 8:39:03 AM PST by 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."
It's more that that,it's a actual felony. Federal law REQUIRES a gun dealer to report ALL stolen weapons,and failure to do so is a felony for EACH GUN MISSING. This means a minimum of 238 federal felony charges can be filed against the gun shop owners.
If the claims are right, and Bull's Eye did "lose" 238 firearms, it's more than just a little negligent.
It would almost have to be a criminal conspiracy. I don't see how this could be a innocent mistake.
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?
No,you are not wrong. Bushmaster is a target of the suit because that is where the deep pockets are,and for political reasons.
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.
They are being sued because they have the money,and because the gun-controllers want to establish a precedent to put gun manufacturers out of business. They know it's a BS charge,but it doesn't cost them anything to throw it out there,and they can always hope that one day they hit a jackpot with the right jury and judge. Crap like this would end NOW if companies like Bushmaster were able to sue THEM for damages related to their bogus law suits.
The only real case of negligence I see here is on the part of the BATF.
What WERE they doing?
Good question. One I would like to hear a answer to.
LOL....Maybe she's just suing for an apology?
The car is obviously TOO BIG for our own good. Ban it like the .50 cal rifles.Aren't THEY too big?
That is my belief as well, but I'm sure they have deeper pockets that the store and that is why they are being targeted. (Besides the fact that they manufacture that 'evil assault' weapon.)
That's not the law, and it wouldn't make sense if it were. Think about it for a second. It would mean that if someone was being really stupid and incredibly careless and they hurt you (or your kid, your house, your car, etc.), you could make them pay for it by proving your case by a preponderance of the evidence. But if they hurt you deliberately, so they were facing criminal prosecution as well, your case against them would fail unless the evidence met the stricter test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you really think it makes sense for it to be tougher to sue someone who intentionally kills your family than it is to sue someone who accidentally does it? Your theory would have the law turned upside down, with intentional wrongdoers better off than merely careless ones. No thanks.
And this is wrong. Either they harmed me or another, or they didn't. If it can not be proven, there is no recourse. If this act wasn't criminal, I could take them to "civil court". At that point, I must prove they committed the act that caused the alledged harm. I must prove what the harm is as well.
But if they hurt you deliberately, so they were facing criminal prosecution as well, your case against them would fail unless the evidence met the stricter test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, once convicted by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, you can then recover losses.
I think you misunderstood my post a little. I'm not talking about a simple "civil" suit. I am talking about an issue such as a murder where the person is tried in two different courts with two different standards of proof. If the person is acquitted of murder, there is no way that someone should be able to take them to "civil court", for the same crime, and be able to have them tried under lesser criteria. If it can not be proven that the individual murdered someone, it is not right for another court to be able to punish the person monitarily for an act that was never proven. This is the essence of being tried twice for the same crime. Because the "punishment" is different doesn't change this fact.
You have more credibility so I'll take your word for it, but some liberal crybaby last week wrote an article claiming that the Reagan administration 'crippled' the BATF and the most serious offense that they can charge now is only a misdemeanor.
First, you assume that whether something has been “proven” is a simple yes or no question, that either we know it happened or we know it didn’t. But that’s not how the world works. It’s a spectrum, a matter of degree. Someone can show you proof that makes you think something probably happened, but you’re not completely sure. To imagine it in numerical terms, the evidence might make you 55% convinced, or 80% convinced, or 99.99% convinced.
Second, you are assuming that the standard of proof should be different in a civil case depending on whether a criminal case preceded it. Please realize that would be absurd. As I explained above, it would mean that you would have a harder time recovering from an intentional wrongdoer than one who was merely careless. That is backwards.
Think about an example... Suppose that Paula claims Willie sexually harassed her. It’s not a crime, but it’s something for which a person can be held civilly liable. She has enough proof of it to make a reasonable person 90% convinced that he did it. So she sues... and she wins. Because the jury is convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that he did it. Willie pays damages to compensate for hurting her.
But suppose instead that Juanita claims that Willie raped her. She has enough proof to make a reasonable person 90% convinced that he did it. The prosecutors indict Willie for raping Juanita, it goes to trial, and the jury acquits him because it is only 90% convinced of his guilt, leaving them with a reasonable doubt. So Juanita sues... and Judge FreeTally throws her case out of court. Willie gets off scot free, and doesn’t have to pay her dime, because there was a prior criminal case.
So under your theory, Juanita has proof that is just as strong as Paula’s, and suffered a far more serious injury, but she loses out because she alleges something that could constitute both a crime and a civil tort. That can't possibly be a sensible outcome.
I realize that at first glance it seems unjust that someone can face a second case after being found not guilty in the first one. But unless you want to make the standards of proof the same for civil and criminal cases (which would be silly), it's both inevitable and perfectly appropriate that some people will face civil suits regardless of the outcome of the criminal case against them.
That's correct. You prove it, or you don't.
But that’s not how the world works. It’s a spectrum, a matter of degree. Someone can show you proof that makes you think something probably happened, but you’re not completely sure. To imagine it in numerical terms, the evidence might make you 55% convinced, or 80% convinced, or 99.99% convinced.
"Matter of degree"? Horsecrap. You prove it, or you don't. You are talking about "gut feelings" taking precedent over actual evidence.
Second, you are assuming that the standard of proof should be different in a civil case depending on whether a criminal case preceded it.
No, I state that an act that is strictly criminal should not be tried in a civil court. Once it is proven that the person committed the criminal act, then the victim can seek monetary recourse in the same court.
Please realize that would be absurd. As I explained above, it would mean that you would have a harder time recovering from an intentional wrongdoer than one who was merely careless. That is backwards.
As I calrified, and I know you hadn't read when you posted this, I was referring to acts that are strictly criminal like murder, rape and theft. Not an incident where a neighbor was chopping down a tree and it landed on your car.
Think about an example... Suppose that Paula claims Willie sexually harassed her. It’s not a crime, but it’s something for which a person can be held civilly liable.
Let me stop you right there. It shouldn't be civilly liable. Why does one "owe" another money because of claims that they were offended by words or actions? Assaults and rapes are different, and are criminal matters.
But suppose instead that Juanita claims that Willie raped her. She has enough proof to make a reasonable person 90% convinced that he did it. The prosecutors indict Willie for raping Juanita, it goes to trial, and the jury acquits him because it is only 90% convinced of his guilt, leaving them with a reasonable doubt.
This "percentage" stuff is nonsense. Either the evidence is there, or it isn't.
So Juanita sues... and Judge FreeTally throws her case out of court. Willie gets off scot free, and doesn’t have to pay her dime, because there was a prior criminal case.
Damn straight. It was not proven that the act of rape occurred. Why does Juanita get another chance to rob Willie if it hasn't been proven he raped her? That is what is absurd. Willie is being tried for the SAME act twice.
So under your theory, Juanita has proof that is just as strong as Paula’s, and suffered a far more serious injury, but she loses out because she alleges something that could constitute both a crime and a civil tort. That can't possibly be a sensible outcome.
Sorry, it is trial lawyers who created this notion that an act can be both a criminal act and a civil tort. The correct term is restitution. Restitution can be sought from a person concvicted of a crime which is strictly criminal.
I realize that at first glance it seems unjust that someone can face a second case after being found not guilty in the first one.
There is no "glancing". Its unjust.
But unless you want to make the standards of proof the same for civil and criminal cases (which would be silly), it's both inevitable and perfectly appropriate that some people will face civil suits regardless of the outcome of the criminal case against them.
Again, why would that be silly? Because it puts lawyers out of a job? Its disallows people to rob another after they have bee nacquitted of the act which was a crime? You just state it as truth.
Like I said before, if the acvt is criminal, then you go to criminal court. If the person is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, then restitution can be sought. IF the person is acquitted, end of story.
If your neighbor has torted you, and has not committed a criminal act, then you go to civil court. You must prove that your neighbor torted you. You must prove the monetary damage. If the jury believes a) Your neighbor torted you and b) The monetary damage you claim is correct, then you may recover the damage.
Honestly, this isn't that difficult.
This business of "Well, I'm not really sure he raped you, there is a reasonable doubt, but what the hell, he must pay you $20,000" is what's absurd.
I don't think it is right to expect Bushmaster to enforce the license that the government issued. Bushmaster has every right to expect that the government did due diligence when issueing the license. If Bulls Eye was negligent, it was the responsibility of the government to pull their license, not Bushmaster to investigate the compliance of a duly licensed vendor.
The fault is the government's, not Bushmaster. The process should be for the government to revoke the license when they find that the dealer failed to comply with regulations. Vendors should be able to expect that a license holder has been certified by the government and that it is safe to do business with the license-holder.
-PJ
Bull's Eye is required to report missing firearms within, I believe, 48 hours. So why didn't the BATF revoke Bull's Eye's FFL?
I think the Brady bunch should be suing the feds if anyone.
Don't believe that for a minute. They are making felony busts every day.
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.