Lawsuit targets online ammo retailers that allegedly sold to Aurora theater shoo

[timsatx]

DENVER — The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence will announce Tuesday a lawsuit against online retailers alleged to have sold ammunition and equipment to accused Aurora theater killer James Holmes.

“The lawsuit alleges that the websites negligently supplied Holmes with the arsenal he used to kill 12 people and wound at least 58 others by failing to use any screening mechanism to determine his identity or intent for the products,” the Brady Center said in a media release.

The lawsuit will be filed on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was killed in the massacre. The official announcement was set to be made Tuesday in Denver.

The Brady Center said it plans to name Lucky Gunner (BulkAmmo.com) as well as other online weapons sellers in the lawsuit.

Earlier this month, the Brady Center launched a national campaign against what they call “Bad Apple” gun dealers. The Center argues that just five percent of gun dealers account for nearly all of the guns used in crimes.

http://kdvr.com/2014/09/15/lawsuit-targets-online-retailers-that-allegedly-sold-to-aurora-theater-shooter/

[T Cro ®]

QUOTE: ... failing to use any screening mechanism to determine his identity or intent for the products....

Are you kidding me how stupid can these groups be? And for what purpose are you buying this ammo? To kill a bunch of people...

Holy crap if they were to look into my buying habits they might think I'm suppling ammo and arms to a small army!

Lets not blame the person behind the trigger itself and/or in the case of this kid the mental health system that fails them....

[Strawboss]

So this means that they will be going after all the knife makers and sellers in stabbings because stabbings outnumber shooting by quite a bit. 

[Nosmo]

And all manufacturers of cars/trucks/aircraft/motorcycles/boats/bicycles/skateboards/roller skates/rat poison/pharmaceuticals/food/alcohol/gasoline................

Well, it just never ends with all the things that kill people.

I WANT COMPENSATION!!!!!!!

[B.D.F.]

Most frivolous lawsuits end OK but they can be unbelievably expensive even if dismissed.... eventually. And as there is almost no limit to liability in the US, it makes anyone thinking of selling anything at all hesitate and wonder....

As it relates to motorcycles: I had more than a bit of hesitation before posting a tutorial on how to install a cruise control for that very reason. There is absolutely nothing for me to gain but there is potential for me to lose.

Brian

And all manufacturers of cars/trucks/aircraft/motorcycles/boats/bicycles/skateboards/roller skates/rat poison/pharmaceuticals/food/alcohol/gasoline................

Well, it just never ends with all the things that kill people.

I WANT COMPENSATION!!!!!!!

[MAN OF BLUES]

I say close down every gas station that sells beer and wine.
Or, sue the refineries and beverege producers for the outcome of every person killed by a drunk motorist....
You can buy your means of powering the deadly weapon for death, filling that tank, and picking up a 30 pack of PBR to go, and sooner or later, kablammo.
Not to mention filling a gallon can with gas, and using it as a tool for arson.

Maybe go after the fertilizer companies that sell ammonium nitrate....

So with those 3 factors outta the way, there will be untold amounts of foiled crimes, saving millions.

But we may starve, not be able to drive to work, and be more or less a sober bunch of angry people... yeah, that's the ticket...

[VirginiaJim]

Sober?  Never!!! 

[Strawboss]

Those who file know all this, they will keep on filing until one day, and they know it will happen, one day, a jury sides with the ridiculous plaintiff and blammo, you got precedence. Its over when that happens, and it will in my lifetime.

[VirginiaJim]

No it's not.  Precedence can be overturned and it has.  It ain't easy but it happens.

[Strawboss]

Now how easy do you really think it would be to overturn precedence on such a topic as that? That's why they keep hammering away, they know it will happen, all they need is the camel's nose under the tent. As I said, in my lifetime. 

[B.D.F.]

I do agree with you in general that it is difficult to loosen restrictions on what are perceived as 'dangerous things' by the public, once those restrictions are in place. Still, we have seen some significant reduction in anti- firearm legislation in recent years. And right now, the federal gummit seems to be absolutely locked in inability to address this situation to any degree (which is not a bad thing, IMO) due to the constituents of quite a few localities electing people with such a severe mandate that they simply cannot negotiate in that area.

The other thing about this is that I used to believe that 'Unilateral Personal Disarmament' as Jeff Cooper called it, was just around the corner since the late 60's. And yet here we are, still more or less free to purchase / own / use anything that was not specifically regulated in the G.C.A of 1934 (the US's first regulation of firearms).

Brian

Now how easy do you really think it would be to overturn precedence on such a topic as that? That's why they keep hammering away, they know it will happen, all they need is the camel's nose under the tent. As I said, in my lifetime.

[B.D.F.]

Well, it is harder in some areas than others (Easy Boys!). I think what Dave meant, and I agree with this (if it is what he meant) is that once some kind of restrictive laws are passed on anything perceived in any kind of negative light, it is very difficult to 'go back'. Take smoking for example: in the last, what, 20 years or so, there has been a steady and relentless movement toward reducing smoking in the US through legislation. The overall attitude of the country is to oppose smoking and it is perceived as 'a bad thing'. So any laws currently in place would be extremely difficult to overturn, and any precedence in place would also be extremely difficult to ignore or not follow.

Brian

No it's not.  Precedence can be overturned and it has.  It ain't easy but it happens.

[Strawboss]

In keeping with the firearms slant of this thread, what I mean is that if some jury, not a jury of your peers cause that basically went out long ago if you've ever seen the makeup of current juries, if some jury votes in the majority to hold a maker responsible for what a private person has done, we are done with private ownership of guns as we know it. This isn't a quick thing, they've said it themselves, they are talking years, generations of slow change and lawsuits and precedence making decisions backed up and reinforced by the Supreme Court that is one appointment away from changing the landscape. 

[B.D.F.]

Ruger was found liable back in the early 80's, to be at fault for an accidental discharge due to a flawed design and carried through. It DID result in the printing of 'instructions' down the side of pistols ( ) since that time, and a re-design of every firearm that would not pass an accidental hammer drop discharge test but otherwise, the firearms industry is cruising along pretty well IMO (and according to sales and profits).

I do not think there will be any kind of blanket stopping of manufacturing and distributing firearms due to mfg.'s liability, at least not in the foreseeable future. Certain models may be isolated and "hammered" (read: legally chastised / regulated) but I do not think it will apply to firearms in general. Besides, if I am not mistaken, hasn't this been pushed through the court system again and again without any global result?

Brian

In keeping with the firearms slant of this thread, what I mean is that if some jury, not a jury of your peers cause that basically went out long ago if you've ever seen the makeup of current juries, if some jury votes in the majority to hold a maker responsible for what a private person has done, we are done with private ownership of guns as we know it. This isn't a quick thing, they've said it themselves, they are talking years, generations of slow change and lawsuits and precedence making decisions backed up and reinforced by the Supreme Court that is one appointment away from changing the landscape.

[Clark Kent]

So, big guy with the sword,  what is the difference between this site and the ARENA???

[VirginiaJim]

Kinda like obscenity Clark, I can't define it but I know it when I see it...

[Strawboss]

You are right BDF and I agree. I hope I'm wrong in a big way. Its kinda like school tax levies, they keep putting it on the ballot and it keeps getting knocked down, 3, 4, 5 times, but each time a few more vote for it or a few more don't vote at all and eventually, usually a Tuesday in May when everyone is thinking summer and are outdoors and not watching TV or paying attention, it passes, but just barely, but a pass is a pass. 

[Clark Kent]

Kinda like obscenity Clark, I can't define it but I know it when I see it...

You mean like:     

Even the TV censors are having trouble with this one.

[B.D.F.]

Well, you may well be right too and I really hope not (no insult intended, just not looking forward to less civil liberties).

As it appears to me though, there has really been a gigantic push- back against the anti- gun sector since '08 and it has even intensified in 2010 and 2012 with congressional elections. The pro- gun sector has successfully, at least at the moment, blocked all legislation all the way down to stopping the last federal attempt that started off with assault rifles and the other usual targets (forgive the pun) and ended up trying to limit high capacity magazines.... and they could not even manage that.

This really is not a political discussion but a social one and I think the pendulum has finally started to swing away from the extreme liberal (again socially liberal, not political) views to a more realistic one. It has long been voiced that limiting the legal ownership of firearms would limit firearm deaths and while that may be true in some instances, it is not the major or even a large percentage of the gun deaths in the US. Put even more bluntly, there is no gun problem in cities like Chicago or Washington, DC but rather there is a huge crime problem is [some parts] of those cities. Restricting and regulating firearms purchased through legal channels will never address the major source of firearm deaths simply because it is criminals inflicting the vast majority of those deaths. I would like to believe a larger portion of the citizens are either beginning to see this or perhaps just become more vocal about it.

Brian

You are right BDF and I agree. I hope I'm wrong in a big way. Its kinda like school tax levies, they keep putting it on the ballot and it keeps getting knocked down, 3, 4, 5 times, but each time a few more vote for it or a few more don't vote at all and eventually, usually a Tuesday in May when everyone is thinking summer and are outdoors and not watching TV or paying attention, it passes, but just barely, but a pass is a pass.

[B.D.F.]

Respect. At least that is how it was in the olden' days- I have not visited the arena in a long time and even then it was only by mistake following threads that started off somewhere else and were sent there.

Brian

So, big guy with the sword,  what is the difference between this site and the ARENA???