Brady Bunch's Aurora CO lawsuit

[Southpaw]

Accidentally came across this but I got sucked into reading it.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/PhillipsvsLuckyGunner.pdf

This is the lawsuit brought against the online retailers who sold James Holmes ammo and other various equipment. The plaintiffs are the parent of Jessica Gawhi but it seems the Brady Center is doing all the work (surprise, surprise). It basically states that the Gawhi's believe that these ONLINE retailers should have known what Holmes was up too based upon his history of odd behavior, that by the way, they where never party too, and should have never sold him the items based on that.

 

[TXAZ]

While my heart goes out to the family, somebody there is in more need of a high colonic than any one else in America.

 

[Davetex]

"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the face." -- Mike Tyson

 

[Southpaw]

One thing that caught my attention is this:

6.
This lawsuit does not in any way challenge the right of law-abiding citizens to
bear arms. This lawsuit also does not challenge in any way the right of responsible businesses to
operate a business of selling products — even potentially lethal products — to law-abiding
3
citizens. This lawsuit is about the unreasonably dangerous operation of businesses that
negligently supply combat supplies and other materiel to the criminal market. Negligently
supplying dangerous people with the means to engage in mass killings not only causes
foreseeable harm (such as the shooting incidents underlying this case), it unfairly tarnishes the arms for lawful purposes, including protection, hunting,or other recreational activities.

However, this is what they would like to see happen to the Defendants and no doubt, being the Brady Center, all ammo retailers.

203.
It is appropriate for the Court to award injunctive relief to ensure Defendant’s
business practices change and to stop their commercial activities until such changes are
implemented.

 

[jrbfishn]

How is an online, or local for that matter, supposed to know what someone might do with stuff they sell? How are we supposed to know who is crimminal or not? And what is combat items? Just how many robbers dress in or carry molitary combat gear anyway?
Whole thing is just a smoke screen to get press and make some shady lawyer more money.

From an idjit coffeeholic

 

[Southpaw]

How is an online, or local for that matter, supposed to know what someone might do with stuff they sell? How are we supposed to know who is crimminal or not? And what is combat items? Just how many robbers dress in or carry molitary combat gear anyway?
Whole thing is just a smoke screen to get press and make some shady lawyer more money.

From an idjit coffeeholic

Seems that the Brady Bunch is pushing the agenda to stop online ammo sales and such. Hell, they are suing the body armor company not because it's items actually killed anyone but rather because it "emboldened" Holmes to commit the acts!!!

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

...negligently and unlawfully supplied a patently dangerous homicidal man, James Holmes, with the equipment necessary for him to engage in a mass, offensive assault on innocent people.

Defendants sell combat supplies, such as military-style high-capacity ammunition magazines, ammunition, and body armor, that can be and have been used in numerous criminal shootings, including horrific mass attacks on humanity. At all relevant times they were well aware of the foreseeable risk that their products would be used in such attacks, especially if they failed to exercise reasonable care in their business practice

Let's see .... they were supposed to be able to devine this guy's FUTURE actions? How? Contact their local astrologer or psychic??

And so what if ammunition or body armor has been used in past criminal shootings!! Using the Brady Bunch's logic, that would mean that 99.9999% of the ammunition sold ANYWHERE would be banned or prevented from being sold outright.

If I were the judge on the bench for this case, I'd toss it out and tell the Brady Bunch to stop being flaming assholes and concentrate their efforts on not being flaming assholes.

 

[Southpaw]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/blog/brady-center-loses-lawsuit-targeting-online-ammo-sellers/

[h=1]Brady Center Loses Lawsuit Targeting Online Ammo Sellers[/h]Posted on March 28, 2015 in FPC Blog
In an order released yesterday, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch ruled against the plaintiffs in the case of Sandy Phillips, et al., v. Lucky Gunner, LLC., et al.
Sandy and Lonnie Phillips are the parents of Jessica Ghawi, one of the victims of the Aurora movie theater shooting. The lawsuit was backed by the anti-gun Brady Center.
According to a September 2014 report by ABC 7 News in Denver, the lawsuit accused “the four online suppliers of ammunition and military-grade equipment of failing to screen the gunman and making it too easy for him to buy ammunition, tear gas and body armor.”
“We’re putting them on notice, we’re coming after you,” Lonnie Phillips was reported as saying.
Apparently, the law had something else to say about that.
The case was dismissed for failure to overcome the industry protections in the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq.), also known as PLCAA, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. The plaintiffs’ arguments were also found to collapse under a similar state law that protects the firearms community from frivolous and harassing tort claims.
Adding to the sting of losing the case, the Court also held that “defendants Lucky Gunner and the Sportsman’s Guide are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.”
Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in support of the constitutionality of the PLCAA:

The United States of America intervenes in this case for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901- 7903 (the “Protection Act” or “Act”), which plaintiffs challenge in their Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Pl. Opp.”) (ECF No. 27). The Protection Act stands on firm constitutional footing. Virtually identical arguments to those advanced by plaintiffs here have already been rejected by courts in previous Protection Act litigation. See, e.g., Ileto v. Glock, 565 F.3d 1126, 1138-42 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3320 (2010); City of New York v. Beretta, 524 F.3d 384, 392-98 (2d Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1579 (2009); Estate of Charlot v. Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 174, 182-86 (D.D.C. 2009); Estate of Kim v. Coxe, 295 P.3d 380, 388-92 (Alaska 2013); Adames v. Sheahan, 909 N.E.2d 742, 764-65 (Ill.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1014 (2009); District of Columbia v. Beretta, 940 A.2d 163, 172-82 (D.C. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1579 (2009).
​

We wonder if the “Brady Bunch” will be paying the defendants’ legal fees or of they’re just going to cut and run, leaving the individual plaintiffs holding the proverbial bag…
The full docket is located here.
H/T to CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman.

 

[jrbfishn]

Should have never been filed.

 

[General Zod]

I like that they're being required to reimburse attorneys' fees. I wish every frivolous lawsuit or false prosecution resulted in that. If there was risk involved for the accuser, fewer bogus cases would go to trial.

 

[ROGER4314]

I like that they're being required to reimburse attorneys' fees. I wish every frivolous lawsuit or false prosecution resulted in that. If there was risk involved for the accuser, fewer bogus cases would go to trial.

That they were saddled with the defendant's legal costs gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling! Watch the Brady Bunch disappear when this bill comes due. Liberals.......You just gotta love 'em!

Flash