If reporter Daniel Wiessner wants to know why the media now has a trust factor less than used car dealers from the public he only has to look in a mirror to find the answer. A blatantly obvious error that he just copied down directly from the Brady news release is the idea that a resident from another state can buy firearms from a firearms dealer in Ohio without going through a background check.
You cannot legally buy a handgun from another state, and you cannot buy from a dealer without a background check. A moments research would have shown that Brady statement was a lie.
Gun control is not about safety..is about Criminals defending criminals…
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is representing Williams, claims Bostic is a convicted felon and is barred from purchasing guns, according to the ruling.
So where in the hell the criminal got his gun and what the company has to do with what a criminal do with a gun?
If all the “facts” alleged by the victim and his advocates are true, why is not Bostic in jail, and Brown deprived of his license (and in jail)?
Since this is a question regarding the scope and breadth of a Federal Statute, it will ultimately be decided in the Federal District Court, and/or the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Just another run by the “Brady’s” to bankrupt manufacturers, distributors, and dealers, through the cost of endless litigation, which was what the PLCAA was supposed to prevent.
“Although the complaint does not specify the statutes allegedly violated (by the defendants), it sufficiently alleges facts supporting a finding that defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws,” Justice Erin Peradotto wrote for the court.
These “judges” must live on another planet.
Federal court. Injunction. The state panel is thumbing its nose at the federal law.
So the next time my car breaks down, i’m going to sue the oil and gas company because i purchased their gas and their oil? The arguments raised here make no sense. I own guns, and you have to have to show proof of residency in the state you are purchasing the gun-OR-you have to do the paperwork for that state you legally reside in. Regardless, there is ALWAYS a federal background check for each and every gun you purchase.One background check does not clear you to buy multiple guns at one time, this is FEDERAL LAW, not state law.
I would like to warn the insurance carriers for our agency who are out of state, Travelers, Zurich, Philadelphia and Lloyds sindicates that we routinely get your policies, roll them up and beat people with them. You all have deeper pockets than my little agency has.
…and I suppose our “founding fathers” didn’t really say/mean we could bear arms either!! What a pile of BS these judges have stacked up and all while ignoring “federal law.” What kind of political/federal respect for the law is that!? Obamatactics where he can ignore the law at his whim & pleasure as he’s done several times in the last four years?
The “founding fathers” in the second amendment absolutely did say that that we can own fighter jets, tanks, smart bombs, nuclear bombs, all sorts of arms; yet we obviously can’t. Where’s the uproar over that? Why only guns?
Of course, they also said we can own slaves and women can’t vote, among other things. I guess they made some mistakes.
If you can afford it, stand the scutiny, pay the permits and toe the line you can own the above listed equipment, except bombs and nuc’s , there is a Federal regulation against that. And Mr brains, they aren’t needed for personal self defense, at least not yet, but if people that think like you keep voting that day may come. Geez ya’ll sure do get emotional over inanimate objects. The point of the Constitution and Amendments is to ensure personal Liberty and safety from evil. Why is that so hard to understand for some of you? Cops generally respond 5 or more minutes after a crime…. Having a gun simply restores law.
The first words in the second amendment are “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. Read some history and understand the role played by well regulated militia in securing and protecting our freedoms. They routinely fought against regular army and needed the same weapons in order to successfully fulfill their role.
This is why we have the amendment. This is why it clearly should give us access to the same weapons as a regular army. But, we gave up on that a long time ago because it became impractical.
The whole debate gets murky when people forget what it really is all about, selling guns. the Gun Lobby wants to expand its sales into what is called a consumer division becuase military sales usually bottom out unless there is a new war, when sales spike for the duration. I have no problem with anyone wanting to purchase and own a firearm. I am not at all comfortable with my neighbor owning a chinese AK-47 or for that matter anyone who wants to own a Bushmaster-15 and I see no good reason to own a magazine with more than 3 or 5 cartridges. I have hunted and always felt that a 30.06 or 30-30 or .273 winchester rifle was enough firepower to protect me from a wild deer, or even a black bear. I can also understand wanting a sidearm, like a .357 magnum or .44 magnum etc. But a 9MM with a 30 shot clip? for hunting? the only folks I know who need more than that are “gun enthusiasts” whose only outlet for using them is at a practice range, but I then ask myself, “practice? for what?, shooting people?” so the next part of the debate is whether reducing the number or type of guns available will have an effect on crime. I say yes, if we correctly identify the mentally unstable, and make guns less available so these folks cannot access guns, we could reduce the last 3 massacres/multiple shootings to non-events, adn the John Muhommad spree in DC would not have happened were it not for Bushmaster-15. Certainly if guns sales require meaningful background checks, we might never know of a crime being associated with a new gun sale, but I know that if guns were not easily available and folks were not eager to use them, one young man in Florida would still be alive today. What is the purpose of an assault rifle, if not to kill? Sport and fun? Do we really want people to “play” with guns if they are only for sport and fun? I believe a .32 or .38 or something like taht was the common weapon for home protection. Why would you need more than that? I personally don’t live in a neighborhood where I have to worry about that so I can’t really say more than just keep the gun to something a little less “sexy” than soemthing that you want to show off. I really doubt that we are going to need highpowered assault rifles to be ready to revolt against our government unless I change my political views about the current society we live in. What I do remember most though about guns and the history of the Colt .45, the peacemaker, is that when cities and towns in the United States enacted ordinances against weary firearms openly in the towns, gun play was no longer a problem. whereever guns are, they are USED. In Lebanon PA, a woman wore her “protection” openly at her son’s soccer game and folks went wild, the police investigated and even took her gun from her. to everyone’s astonishment, the chief of police had to return it because she got a valid legal permit, signed by the local sherriff. A year later, the woman and her husband were dead from a murder-suicide, leaving two children behind…..so while people do the real damage and not the gun, having it available only defines NOT “WHETHER” IT WILL BE USED BUT “WHEN”. I don’t know what the answer is other than let’s stop the sales of assault rifles and high powered hand guns, and stop making large capacity clips. If guns are really for a useful purpose, then only those who actually participate need to bother. I no longer hunt and have no desire to own guns, so any restrictions will not affect me. for those who own them legally, they have an obligation to restrict access to them, which is not always the case. Most of all of the guns that are stolen in burglaries usually end up in the hands of those who do not possess them legally. If gun owners made their guns a little harder to access, even criminals will have a hard time getting one.
If people “should have known” that the retail dealer was being irresponsible, why didn’t BATFE revoke his Federal Firearms license? Why are private entities with no investigative power being held to a higher standard than the government agency responsible for licensing and policing gun dealers? Why isn’t the Brady Center suing BATFE?
Why is it that stories like this always contain the names of every other person involved but virtually never mention the name of the judge(s) who made the decision?
Your argument that it’s unreasonable to expect the manufacturer and distributor to know the dealer was irresponsible makes good sense. However, this isn’t what this court was asked to rule on. This court wasn’t ruling on whether the plaintiff acted negligently, only whether there is a question of fact for jury. Your very argument against the decision enforces the correctness of the finding. This should go to a jury.
How does a court issue a ruling that says, essentially, “We don’t know what laws, if any, were allegedly broken, or how; but since the plaintiff says they were, we’ll let this go forward.” What kind of crap is that?
“Although the complaint does not specify the statutes allegedly violated (by the defendants), it sufficiently alleges facts supporting a finding that defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws,” Justice Erin Peradotto wrote for the court.
This is one of the most ludicrous ‘opinions’ (remember, everyone has one,…) ever penned by a “justice”, but what lawyer stands up in front of the court unable to name the law which the defendant has allegedly broken?
“Your Honors, I’m not sure which law it is, but I’m fairly certain these companies/gun dealer violated federal law.”
The plaintiff, in suing for damages, is stating that the defendent knowingly sold guns through irresponsible dealears. This court is stating that if this allegation is true, the plaintiff could be entitled to damages.
The court is letting the question of fact (did the defendent knowlingly sell guns through irresponsible dealers and, if so, did that lead to the plaintiffs injuries) be decided by a jury. No more, no less.
Isn’t that where questions of fact are supposed to be decided in our court system?
Why should the plaintiffs be protected from being sued if they are in fact selling through irresponsible dealers?
Geez, then why is the dealer still in business as knowingly allowing straw buys, especially to felons, gets a dealers license yanked?
But since the BATF itself knowingly refuses to prosecute more than 1% of those who were caught attempting to buy from a licensed dealer since 1994 (over 1 mil), and doesnt prosecute any of the 830,000 others rejected which include the crazies, or the 95% of felons who dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with, or the 100% of those who use a fake identification to pass the background check, much less the refusal of the BATF to allow anyone but licensed dealers to access the NICS system, one wonders exactly what kind of can of worms this judge really wants open as I would surely call the BATF in a subpeona to answer why they failed to detect such activities to begin with!
Guns were being bought by a convicted felon in a state that does not require a license to buy a gun, and were being illegally transported across state lines, to NYS for sale into the black market.
That’s not what I read! Pretty much shameful behavior on the judges parts and the trial lawyers…. it’s about the money not justice. Justice would be prosecuting the guilty if there are any. Businesses are so watched and regulated by the Feds that this had to be a deliberatly ignored situation, kinda like Fast and Furious.
@Temblor – By your logic, the state should be liable as well. The gun manufacturer didn’t pull the trigger. How can they be held accountable for something they had nothing to do with? That like saying I should be allowed to Goodyear because I ran over a nail and got a flat tire. Absurd.
I don’t think it is ok, but what does the manufacture of the gun have to with the killing of someone. For that matter, if a dealer knowingly sells to a felon, then throw the book at him. I just know from first hand knowledge that you have to pass a FEDERAL BACKGROUND check for each and every gun someone purchases-REGARDLESS of the state you live in. If the gun dealer did not do this, then the ATF would be all over him.
Ridiculus , shameful behavior on the part of the judges and the trial lawyers. All about the money…. what’s the background of the victim??? gang member or not?
I can see where this is going, “I was in a car accidnet 15 years ago and still have some lingering pain. Let’s sue GM because it was their vehicle that hit me. It has nothing to do with the unlicensed and uninsured drunk that was driving.” Once you open this can of worms any sleazy ambulance chasing attorney will be using this new interpretation.
What stranglehold does the gun manufacturers have on us Brokie? What does that mean exactly? Are they forcing people to buy guns? Gun nuts? People who own guns and are responsible with them are now gun nuts? I live in a rural area. We have alot of poisonous snakes, coyotes, bobcats, cougars, wild hogs and other dangerous animals. Even if I did not use a gun to hunt, I certainly would need one to protect my pets. I grew up in a house where there was always a loaded gun. We were taught about gun safety. I enjoy target practice and I once enjoyed deer hunting. And I am sorry, but if someone broke into my house, I am glad I have a gun to defend myself. I am no nut. I feel guns have a proper use and place. And if you teach your children correctly, there is no problem. My guns are locked in a gun cabinet and/or put in a safe location. Only ignorant people make generalized statements that are meant to pertain to an entire group.Do you have knives in your home? Does that make you a knife nut?
@brokie I am very confused, you have the guts to post such a totally volatile statement but not the backbone to back up your opinion. Phrase put up or shut up comes to mind.
I certainly hope this is thrown out. Do you really think WalMart kept track of the people they sold guns to in 2003.
Anything can be a weapon… remember that if this case goes anywhere.
Where will the liabilty end? This can’t go on. Hopefully a judge will see this and end it. Next, you’ll want to go to the steel factory that mined the ore that was fabricated to make the gun. Stop the Insanity!
On one hand making a third parties responsable for the criminal acts of others is absurd. The job of law enforcement should not be fobbed off on others. Business owners need to worry about the job of running a business, not being police.
On the other hand the relative ease with which criminals can get firearms is alarming. That being said, is this ruling the best way to address that problem? My opinion is “no”! I wish I was smart enough to give a detailed solution to a societal problem that threatens us all, but I’m not.
I really don’t understand why so many of you are angry. The court did not say that the gun manufacturer owes the plaintiff anything. It only said that there was a question of fact which should go to a jury.
Can one of you explain why the gun manufacturer and distributor should be protected from being sued for damages arising out of alleged negligent actions on their part.
I’m not suggesting that they were negligent or that damages should be paid to the plaintiff; I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that question. I just want to understand why this decision (to let the question of fact go to a jury) is making so many of you angry.
J.S., you are the voice of reason on an otherwise unreasonable blog. Some people just aren’t smart enough to know the difference between an allegation and a judgement. Or a criminal action v. a civil action. Or allowing an allegation/suit to be brought before a jury v. a ruling. Of course if the manufacturer knew their distributors were selling they are negligent. But that has yet to be found. No-one is saying they are negligent just because they manufactured the weapon. The allegation is they “knowingly” sold them to irresponsible dealers. You can’t do that and hide behind the law.
It is upsetting because the absurd remarks made above by people commenting on the story could become true by allowing the manufacturer and the distributor to be sued. How did they know the guy who bought the guns from the dealer was a criminal? They didn’t meet him or interview him. It is a ridiculous premise that shouldn’t be allowed in court and waste our tax dollars. Budweiser makes the beer, sells it to a distributor who sells it to a bar and the bartender overserves a patron who drives drunk and causes an accident. How would Bud be responsible? It is the same thing as this case.
I certainly do not know what evidence the plaintiffs may have to prove their allegations. From the very little I know, I personally think it is unlikely that the plantiffs acted negligently in this regard.
At the same time, I disagree with your assertion that the premise that the manufacturer knowingly sold guns through an unreliable dealer should be decided as a matter of law without either side being permitted to present any evidence whatsoever.
Excellent decision. This means if I am injured by a reckless and irresponsible driver of an automobile I can sue the manufacture, wholesaler and dealership who allowed a vehicle to end up in the hands of a reckless and irresponsible driver? Why not, whats the difference?
Come on Plaintiff Attorneys lets start suing auto dealerships for selling cars that are used by irresponsible and reckless drivers to kill and injure people.
So does this mean if I’m injured by an automobile that is owned and driven by an irresponsible, reckless driver I can sue the vehicle manufacture and the dealership who sold the car to the reckless driver… Right? I don’t see any difference
If I read the article correctly, the complaint alleges that the manufacturer knowingly violated federal law, but could not identify which federal law was violated or how. Thus, the pleading is merely a legal conclusion and not a pleading of facts sufficient to establish a legal cause of action. So, the pleading should have been tossed, but with leave to amend.
How about this: When a person commits insurance fraud, say by burning down their house for the insurance money, the police should also arrest the insurance agent and the insurance company. They should also arrest the manufacturer of the accelerant and the company who made the matches or the lighter or the boy scouts for teaching us about rubbing 2 sticks together to make a spark/flame, and of course God for making the sticks and all the other raw materials…..
If reporter Daniel Wiessner wants to know why the media now has a trust factor less than used car dealers from the public he only has to look in a mirror to find the answer. A blatantly obvious error that he just copied down directly from the Brady news release is the idea that a resident from another state can buy firearms from a firearms dealer in Ohio without going through a background check.
You cannot legally buy a handgun from another state, and you cannot buy from a dealer without a background check. A moments research would have shown that Brady statement was a lie.
Gun control is not about safety..is about Criminals defending criminals…
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is representing Williams, claims Bostic is a convicted felon and is barred from purchasing guns, according to the ruling.
So where in the hell the criminal got his gun and what the company has to do with what a criminal do with a gun?
If all the “facts” alleged by the victim and his advocates are true, why is not Bostic in jail, and Brown deprived of his license (and in jail)?
Since this is a question regarding the scope and breadth of a Federal Statute, it will ultimately be decided in the Federal District Court, and/or the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Just another run by the “Brady’s” to bankrupt manufacturers, distributors, and dealers, through the cost of endless litigation, which was what the PLCAA was supposed to prevent.
“Although the complaint does not specify the statutes allegedly violated (by the defendants), it sufficiently alleges facts supporting a finding that defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws,” Justice Erin Peradotto wrote for the court.
These “judges” must live on another planet.
Federal court. Injunction. The state panel is thumbing its nose at the federal law.
So the next time my car breaks down, i’m going to sue the oil and gas company because i purchased their gas and their oil? The arguments raised here make no sense. I own guns, and you have to have to show proof of residency in the state you are purchasing the gun-OR-you have to do the paperwork for that state you legally reside in. Regardless, there is ALWAYS a federal background check for each and every gun you purchase.One background check does not clear you to buy multiple guns at one time, this is FEDERAL LAW, not state law.
I would like to warn the insurance carriers for our agency who are out of state, Travelers, Zurich, Philadelphia and Lloyds sindicates that we routinely get your policies, roll them up and beat people with them. You all have deeper pockets than my little agency has.
Ludicrous court system
…and I suppose our “founding fathers” didn’t really say/mean we could bear arms either!! What a pile of BS these judges have stacked up and all while ignoring “federal law.” What kind of political/federal respect for the law is that!? Obamatactics where he can ignore the law at his whim & pleasure as he’s done several times in the last four years?
The “founding fathers” in the second amendment absolutely did say that that we can own fighter jets, tanks, smart bombs, nuclear bombs, all sorts of arms; yet we obviously can’t. Where’s the uproar over that? Why only guns?
Of course, they also said we can own slaves and women can’t vote, among other things. I guess they made some mistakes.
If you can afford it, stand the scutiny, pay the permits and toe the line you can own the above listed equipment, except bombs and nuc’s , there is a Federal regulation against that. And Mr brains, they aren’t needed for personal self defense, at least not yet, but if people that think like you keep voting that day may come. Geez ya’ll sure do get emotional over inanimate objects. The point of the Constitution and Amendments is to ensure personal Liberty and safety from evil. Why is that so hard to understand for some of you? Cops generally respond 5 or more minutes after a crime…. Having a gun simply restores law.
The first words in the second amendment are “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. Read some history and understand the role played by well regulated militia in securing and protecting our freedoms. They routinely fought against regular army and needed the same weapons in order to successfully fulfill their role.
This is why we have the amendment. This is why it clearly should give us access to the same weapons as a regular army. But, we gave up on that a long time ago because it became impractical.
The whole debate gets murky when people forget what it really is all about, selling guns. the Gun Lobby wants to expand its sales into what is called a consumer division becuase military sales usually bottom out unless there is a new war, when sales spike for the duration. I have no problem with anyone wanting to purchase and own a firearm. I am not at all comfortable with my neighbor owning a chinese AK-47 or for that matter anyone who wants to own a Bushmaster-15 and I see no good reason to own a magazine with more than 3 or 5 cartridges. I have hunted and always felt that a 30.06 or 30-30 or .273 winchester rifle was enough firepower to protect me from a wild deer, or even a black bear. I can also understand wanting a sidearm, like a .357 magnum or .44 magnum etc. But a 9MM with a 30 shot clip? for hunting? the only folks I know who need more than that are “gun enthusiasts” whose only outlet for using them is at a practice range, but I then ask myself, “practice? for what?, shooting people?” so the next part of the debate is whether reducing the number or type of guns available will have an effect on crime. I say yes, if we correctly identify the mentally unstable, and make guns less available so these folks cannot access guns, we could reduce the last 3 massacres/multiple shootings to non-events, adn the John Muhommad spree in DC would not have happened were it not for Bushmaster-15. Certainly if guns sales require meaningful background checks, we might never know of a crime being associated with a new gun sale, but I know that if guns were not easily available and folks were not eager to use them, one young man in Florida would still be alive today. What is the purpose of an assault rifle, if not to kill? Sport and fun? Do we really want people to “play” with guns if they are only for sport and fun? I believe a .32 or .38 or something like taht was the common weapon for home protection. Why would you need more than that? I personally don’t live in a neighborhood where I have to worry about that so I can’t really say more than just keep the gun to something a little less “sexy” than soemthing that you want to show off. I really doubt that we are going to need highpowered assault rifles to be ready to revolt against our government unless I change my political views about the current society we live in. What I do remember most though about guns and the history of the Colt .45, the peacemaker, is that when cities and towns in the United States enacted ordinances against weary firearms openly in the towns, gun play was no longer a problem. whereever guns are, they are USED. In Lebanon PA, a woman wore her “protection” openly at her son’s soccer game and folks went wild, the police investigated and even took her gun from her. to everyone’s astonishment, the chief of police had to return it because she got a valid legal permit, signed by the local sherriff. A year later, the woman and her husband were dead from a murder-suicide, leaving two children behind…..so while people do the real damage and not the gun, having it available only defines NOT “WHETHER” IT WILL BE USED BUT “WHEN”. I don’t know what the answer is other than let’s stop the sales of assault rifles and high powered hand guns, and stop making large capacity clips. If guns are really for a useful purpose, then only those who actually participate need to bother. I no longer hunt and have no desire to own guns, so any restrictions will not affect me. for those who own them legally, they have an obligation to restrict access to them, which is not always the case. Most of all of the guns that are stolen in burglaries usually end up in the hands of those who do not possess them legally. If gun owners made their guns a little harder to access, even criminals will have a hard time getting one.
And what “well regulated militia” do you belong to Jim?
And, Jim, what “well regulated militia” do you belong to?
If people “should have known” that the retail dealer was being irresponsible, why didn’t BATFE revoke his Federal Firearms license? Why are private entities with no investigative power being held to a higher standard than the government agency responsible for licensing and policing gun dealers? Why isn’t the Brady Center suing BATFE?
Why is it that stories like this always contain the names of every other person involved but virtually never mention the name of the judge(s) who made the decision?
Your argument that it’s unreasonable to expect the manufacturer and distributor to know the dealer was irresponsible makes good sense. However, this isn’t what this court was asked to rule on. This court wasn’t ruling on whether the plaintiff acted negligently, only whether there is a question of fact for jury. Your very argument against the decision enforces the correctness of the finding. This should go to a jury.
How does a court issue a ruling that says, essentially, “We don’t know what laws, if any, were allegedly broken, or how; but since the plaintiff says they were, we’ll let this go forward.” What kind of crap is that?
It’s the kind of crap you get from a court system in a state that has the Sullivan Law. In other words, bass-ackwards.
“Although the complaint does not specify the statutes allegedly violated (by the defendants), it sufficiently alleges facts supporting a finding that defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws,” Justice Erin Peradotto wrote for the court.
This is one of the most ludicrous ‘opinions’ (remember, everyone has one,…) ever penned by a “justice”, but what lawyer stands up in front of the court unable to name the law which the defendant has allegedly broken?
“Your Honors, I’m not sure which law it is, but I’m fairly certain these companies/gun dealer violated federal law.”
The plaintiff, in suing for damages, is stating that the defendent knowingly sold guns through irresponsible dealears. This court is stating that if this allegation is true, the plaintiff could be entitled to damages.
The court is letting the question of fact (did the defendent knowlingly sell guns through irresponsible dealers and, if so, did that lead to the plaintiffs injuries) be decided by a jury. No more, no less.
Isn’t that where questions of fact are supposed to be decided in our court system?
Why should the plaintiffs be protected from being sued if they are in fact selling through irresponsible dealers?
Geez, then why is the dealer still in business as knowingly allowing straw buys, especially to felons, gets a dealers license yanked?
But since the BATF itself knowingly refuses to prosecute more than 1% of those who were caught attempting to buy from a licensed dealer since 1994 (over 1 mil), and doesnt prosecute any of the 830,000 others rejected which include the crazies, or the 95% of felons who dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with, or the 100% of those who use a fake identification to pass the background check, much less the refusal of the BATF to allow anyone but licensed dealers to access the NICS system, one wonders exactly what kind of can of worms this judge really wants open as I would surely call the BATF in a subpeona to answer why they failed to detect such activities to begin with!
Guns were being bought by a convicted felon in a state that does not require a license to buy a gun, and were being illegally transported across state lines, to NYS for sale into the black market.
And John Schrader says that’s OK?
That’s not what I read! Pretty much shameful behavior on the judges parts and the trial lawyers…. it’s about the money not justice. Justice would be prosecuting the guilty if there are any. Businesses are so watched and regulated by the Feds that this had to be a deliberatly ignored situation, kinda like Fast and Furious.
@Temblor – By your logic, the state should be liable as well. The gun manufacturer didn’t pull the trigger. How can they be held accountable for something they had nothing to do with? That like saying I should be allowed to Goodyear because I ran over a nail and got a flat tire. Absurd.
I don’t think it is ok, but what does the manufacture of the gun have to with the killing of someone. For that matter, if a dealer knowingly sells to a felon, then throw the book at him. I just know from first hand knowledge that you have to pass a FEDERAL BACKGROUND check for each and every gun someone purchases-REGARDLESS of the state you live in. If the gun dealer did not do this, then the ATF would be all over him.
Can I sue Seagrams and/or Budweiser should a drunk smash into my car?
Ridiculus , shameful behavior on the part of the judges and the trial lawyers. All about the money…. what’s the background of the victim??? gang member or not?
I can see where this is going, “I was in a car accidnet 15 years ago and still have some lingering pain. Let’s sue GM because it was their vehicle that hit me. It has nothing to do with the unlicensed and uninsured drunk that was driving.” Once you open this can of worms any sleazy ambulance chasing attorney will be using this new interpretation.
At last – a REAL challenge to the stranglehold that gun manufacturers have on us. Gun nuts must have steam blowin’ out of their ears…
What stranglehold does the gun manufacturers have on us Brokie? What does that mean exactly? Are they forcing people to buy guns? Gun nuts? People who own guns and are responsible with them are now gun nuts? I live in a rural area. We have alot of poisonous snakes, coyotes, bobcats, cougars, wild hogs and other dangerous animals. Even if I did not use a gun to hunt, I certainly would need one to protect my pets. I grew up in a house where there was always a loaded gun. We were taught about gun safety. I enjoy target practice and I once enjoyed deer hunting. And I am sorry, but if someone broke into my house, I am glad I have a gun to defend myself. I am no nut. I feel guns have a proper use and place. And if you teach your children correctly, there is no problem. My guns are locked in a gun cabinet and/or put in a safe location. Only ignorant people make generalized statements that are meant to pertain to an entire group.Do you have knives in your home? Does that make you a knife nut?
@brokie I am very confused, you have the guts to post such a totally volatile statement but not the backbone to back up your opinion. Phrase put up or shut up comes to mind.
I certainly hope this is thrown out. Do you really think WalMart kept track of the people they sold guns to in 2003.
Anything can be a weapon… remember that if this case goes anywhere.
Where will the liabilty end? This can’t go on. Hopefully a judge will see this and end it. Next, you’ll want to go to the steel factory that mined the ore that was fabricated to make the gun. Stop the Insanity!
On one hand making a third parties responsable for the criminal acts of others is absurd. The job of law enforcement should not be fobbed off on others. Business owners need to worry about the job of running a business, not being police.
On the other hand the relative ease with which criminals can get firearms is alarming. That being said, is this ruling the best way to address that problem? My opinion is “no”! I wish I was smart enough to give a detailed solution to a societal problem that threatens us all, but I’m not.
I had another thought. If the gun manufacturer loses, they can then subrogate against the bullet manufacturer!
Good now we can sue beer manufacturer when a dui driver hit and kills some one,Right???
I really don’t understand why so many of you are angry. The court did not say that the gun manufacturer owes the plaintiff anything. It only said that there was a question of fact which should go to a jury.
Can one of you explain why the gun manufacturer and distributor should be protected from being sued for damages arising out of alleged negligent actions on their part.
I’m not suggesting that they were negligent or that damages should be paid to the plaintiff; I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that question. I just want to understand why this decision (to let the question of fact go to a jury) is making so many of you angry.
J.S., you are the voice of reason on an otherwise unreasonable blog. Some people just aren’t smart enough to know the difference between an allegation and a judgement. Or a criminal action v. a civil action. Or allowing an allegation/suit to be brought before a jury v. a ruling. Of course if the manufacturer knew their distributors were selling they are negligent. But that has yet to be found. No-one is saying they are negligent just because they manufactured the weapon. The allegation is they “knowingly” sold them to irresponsible dealers. You can’t do that and hide behind the law.
It is upsetting because the absurd remarks made above by people commenting on the story could become true by allowing the manufacturer and the distributor to be sued. How did they know the guy who bought the guns from the dealer was a criminal? They didn’t meet him or interview him. It is a ridiculous premise that shouldn’t be allowed in court and waste our tax dollars. Budweiser makes the beer, sells it to a distributor who sells it to a bar and the bartender overserves a patron who drives drunk and causes an accident. How would Bud be responsible? It is the same thing as this case.
I certainly do not know what evidence the plaintiffs may have to prove their allegations. From the very little I know, I personally think it is unlikely that the plantiffs acted negligently in this regard.
At the same time, I disagree with your assertion that the premise that the manufacturer knowingly sold guns through an unreliable dealer should be decided as a matter of law without either side being permitted to present any evidence whatsoever.
Excellent decision. This means if I am injured by a reckless and irresponsible driver of an automobile I can sue the manufacture, wholesaler and dealership who allowed a vehicle to end up in the hands of a reckless and irresponsible driver? Why not, whats the difference?
Come on Plaintiff Attorneys lets start suing auto dealerships for selling cars that are used by irresponsible and reckless drivers to kill and injure people.
So does this mean if I’m injured by an automobile that is owned and driven by an irresponsible, reckless driver I can sue the vehicle manufacture and the dealership who sold the car to the reckless driver… Right? I don’t see any difference
If I read the article correctly, the complaint alleges that the manufacturer knowingly violated federal law, but could not identify which federal law was violated or how. Thus, the pleading is merely a legal conclusion and not a pleading of facts sufficient to establish a legal cause of action. So, the pleading should have been tossed, but with leave to amend.
How about this: When a person commits insurance fraud, say by burning down their house for the insurance money, the police should also arrest the insurance agent and the insurance company. They should also arrest the manufacturer of the accelerant and the company who made the matches or the lighter or the boy scouts for teaching us about rubbing 2 sticks together to make a spark/flame, and of course God for making the sticks and all the other raw materials…..