KS&E guns being sued by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

[singlesix]

.

 

[HoughMade]

Looks like the judges threw out everything except the public-nuisance part. I will leave how that turned out to those who understand legal speak better than me.

They threw out everything that requested damages- as well they should have- because there is immunity under the statute.

They left the public nuisance count intact because it asks for equitable relief. Equitable relief is asking the course to compel someone to do something or not do something. However, it's REALLY hard to figure contingency fees based upon equitable relief (guys, trust me- that's hilarious). It may eventually get tossed at a later stage, there is work left to do. The gun control people went all in on this one (I have inside info confirming this, though it's not exactly surprising or secret). Therefore, just becaise the money is gone, it does not necessarily mean the attorneys will jump ship.

 

[femurphy77]

It's hard for my non-legally trained brain to understand how they even allow something like this to be brought up; suing the seller of a firearm for the actions of the end user? The logically next step would be to allow anyone to sue the seller of any item used to commit murder. Of course I understand the concept of personal responsibility, right/wrong, etc.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[HoughMade]

It's hard for my non-legally trained brain to understand how they even allow something like this to be brought up; suing the seller of a firearm for the actions of the end user? The logically next step would be to allow anyone to sue the seller of any item used to commit murder. Of course I understand the concept of personal responsibility, right/wrong, etc.

I understand what you are saying, but they (plaintiff) thought that they had the perfect case where they could make a case that, not only did they sell the gun, they sold the gun while allegedly knowing that it was a straw purchase. The argument was that the seller broke the law in engaging in a straw sale/purchase, and but for the illegal straw purchase, the shooter would not have had the gun.

 

[Alamo]

I don't suppose KS&E can recover any of their fees from the Brady Bums?

 

[edporch]

It was a good decision.
The man who made the straw purchase, and the felon who shot the police officer were the ones responsible.
A gun dealer can't be expected to read the mind of the buyer who says in the 4473 that this isn't a straw purchase, yet it really is.

 

[Fargo]

I don't suppose KS&E can recover any of their fees from the Brady Bums?

As memory serves, the statute provides explicitly for that.

 

[Spear Dane]

As memory serves, the statute provides explicitly for that.

Hopefully the Brady bunch are the ones on the hook for fees and not the cop? Despite the bogusnissity of the suit I would not want his financial life shot too.

 

[STEEL CORE]

A lawsuit claiming damages from ED's second hand smoke for related medical problems might fair better in the courts, except no one forces you to go in there!

 

[HoughMade]

As memory serves, the statute provides explicitly for that.

You are correct. Not only did HCI go all in on this, the gun industry did as well, so we're talking fees at New York rates, not Indiana rates.

Hopefully the Brady bunch are the ones on the hook for fees and not the cop? Despite the bogusnissity of the suit I would not want his financial life shot too.

It is the party to the case under the law (lawyers write the laws), but I am pretty sure they would have promised him that they would cover it if this blew back.

 

[KittySlayer]

It's hard for my non-legally trained brain to understand how they even allow something like this to be brought up; suing the seller of a firearm for the actions of the end user? The logically next step would be to allow anyone to sue the seller of any item used to commit murder. Of course I understand the concept of personal responsibility, right/wrong, etc.

I understand what you are saying, but they (plaintiff) thought that they had the perfect case where they could make a case that, not only did they sell the gun, they sold the gun while allegedly knowing that it was a straw purchase. The argument was that the seller broke the law in engaging in a straw sale/purchase, and but for the illegal straw purchase, the shooter would not have had the gun.

Kind of like a bartender serving drinks to someone obviously intoxicated right before closing time when they will jump in their car and drive the roadways.