The Brady campaign sued Lucky Gunner, attempting to "put them out of business"..

[virginia mountainman]

The judge made this statement in his ruling:

"It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants [Lucky Gunner] into the Colorado court... appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order."

So they naturally lost, and not only did they lose, they lost big, and they are appealing the case to a higher court too loose some more.. Now the Lucky Gunner, is going to donate 100% percent of the "Brady" money back into gun rights advocacy groups, and they have a poll on their website allowing visitors to vote to whom should they donate the Brady Campaign's money too..

It amazes me how one side, can so turn it around, and use the other side's own money against them.

http://www.luckygunner.com/brady-v-lucky-gunner

Just reporting the facts, without emotional embellishments for all to see.

[Travis_0004]

1. To put an exact number on it, 203k is what the Brady campaign owes

[blueridge3210]

2. I wonder if "Magic Mike" Bloomberg is going to cut a check?

[Fred Sanders]

13. Putting facts into the equation...the legal costs order was against the two parents of a gun slain child.

And only because Coloarado passed a NRA inspired gun manufacturer civil suit protection law.

But, hey, do not let facts get in the way of the truth, that is how NRA-lovers ride....with a truckload of misinformation.

[Travis_0004]

14. You should pay when you bring about a frivolous lawsuit

Ammo is legal to buy and sell in this country. Lucky gunner is no more liable than a gas station that sells a 24 pack of beer and that guy ends up killing somebody in a DUI.

Maybe their legal team should have done a bit more research on the laws before they started throwing lawsuits around.

[NaturalHigh]

47. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Lucky gunner is no more liable than a gas station that sells a 24 pack of beer and that guy ends up killing somebody in a DUI.

[Shamash]

20. Pray tell

How is Colorado's law protecting gun manufacturers different from their law protecting every other seller of an item that is misused? To refresh your memory, that non-NRA-inspired section of law would be:

"No product liability action shall be commenced or maintained against any seller of a product unless said seller is also the manufacturer of said product or the manufacturer of the part thereof giving rise to the product liability action."

To put it in better perspective as to how out of line the "NRA-inspired" law is compared to other Colorado liability laws:
"Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section...a llama activity sponsor, a llama professional, or any other person, which shall include a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of of llama activities and, except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, no participant nor participant's representative shall make any claim against, maintain an action against, or recover from a llama activity sponsor, a llama professional, or any other person for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from any of the inherent risks of llama activities."

As best I can tell, this statute also covers scary black llamas and even "assault llamas". No matter how many people run around yelling "Cuidado! Llamas!"

[Fred Sanders]

21. Boring and pathetically obtuse standard fare....Welcome to Ignore, #45. I grow weary of this common NRA-lover's tripe.

[blueridge3210]

22. Ah, the "Ignore List"

The final refuge of a gun-controller who has lost the argument.

[Shamash]

28. You mean "lost the argument 45 times".

[blueridge3210]

29. Heh.

Well played.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. 45 is quite the Ignore List. I think the last person to have a list that long was --

[NaturalHigh]

41. I grieve for those parents who lost their child.

Unfortunately, their grief led them to take some really bad legal advice and file a frivolous lawsuit.

[Fred Sanders]

42. Only "frivolous" because the law has been gerrymandered to favor gun factories. The law is being

challenged in the lawsuit, it will need the appellate court to be overturned so the lawsuit can proceed.

What are the merchants of death so afraid of that they can not defend themselves without intimidating folks in court as well?

[Duckhunter935]

43. Will not be overturned

See SLAPP suit. Abortion providers needed the same protection from right wing abuse of our legal system.

[DonP]

44. "Wishful thinking" is about all the control fans seem to have left

Not much of a strategy, hoping that somehow, with no legal precedent, that it will be "magically" overturned just because, well its about "GUNZ" and everybody hates GUNZ, right?

[Duckhunter935]

45. truly amazing

[NaturalHigh]

46. I don't think you've thoroughly researched the facts of this case.

The plaintiffs never stood a chance. I'm not even sure how you can apply the term "gerrymandered" to the case.

[Fred Sanders]

48. There are 340 million guns in America. Research completed....Conclusion: there are too many guns.

Solution: create laws so there are not so many guns.

Report concluded.

Duh.

[NaturalHigh]

49. You would make quite a lawyer. Try taking that argument into court.

[Fred Sanders]

53. In a court not presided over by a RW gun nut Judge with RW gun nut laws, of course it is the most irrefutable argument

of all, added to 32000 gun-related deaths per annum.....year after year.

[TeddyR]

56. So

In some court not in the US is what you are saying?

[Fred Sanders]

58. So-

so.

[blueridge3210]

60. Nonresponsive. (nt)

[blueridge3210]

50. There are 340 million guns in America.

There are 330 million residents in America. Conclusion: That is a lot of guns and a lot of people. You have much more research to do.

Solution: create laws making murder illegal; report concluded.

Duh.

[Shamash]

51. Please be more understanding of Fred's problems

Fred and Reality had a messy breakup a while back and have not been on speaking terms since. We had hopes that Reality would come back to him, but she doesn't like to hang out with the crowd he associates with. He's tried to find someone to fill the hole now that Reality is gone from his life, but has not had much luck. We've tried to tell Fred that shacking up with the Asshat twins (Ignorance and Certitude) may feel good, but is not going to end well. For one thing, they're also sleeping with all his friends and lord knows what he is going to catch from them. But, he won't listen and it seems he is just going to have to find out the hard way.

[NaturalHigh]

54. ***

[randys1]

76. Guns are the definition of tort lawsuits. LOL If we lived in a sane society, that is.

The very existence of a gun is an act of negligence if someone is harmed or killed as a result of the existence of that gun.

This FACT is WHY the gun mfgs need laws to protect them.

I mean you can sue successfully, as you should be able to, a ladder mfg for not putting a warning on the thing.

A good attorney would sue ALL gun mfgs out of existence if there werent SPECIAL laws protecting them.

And we would all be so much better off if they did.

[blueridge3210]

80. Um, no, you would be wrong.

You would not be able to sue the manufacturer of a ladder if a burglar used it to break into your house. That's what this lawsuit was about. The criminal actions of a 3rd party using a legal party in the commission of a crime. Following your logic, any manufacturer of any legal product would be subject to a lawsuit if any 3rd party used their product to commit a crime. Ford, Craftsman, Exxon, whatever.

[beevul]

90. "This FACT is WHY the gun mfgs need laws to protect them. "

"This FACT is WHY the gun mfgs need laws to protect them. "

No Randy.

The fact that someone who holds views on guns as twisted, hateful, and disconnected from reality as those that you have expressed, could end up on a jury and spitefully vote that a manufacturer is responsible for the criminal misuse of a legally manufactured legally sold product, is WHY the gun mfgs need laws to protect them.


In short, YOUR extremist views on this issue are the problem.

[randys1]

92. LOL

Talk about alternate reality

The person on the side of reason, common sense, saving lives is the extremist

[blueridge3210]

93. The person on the side of reason, common sense and saving lives

would not be arguing for holding the manufacturer of a legal product responsible for the criminal misuse of that product by third parties.

That person would be advocating holding the person(s) directly responsible for the criminal actions to account. YMMV.

[beevul]

97. Sorry again.

You can claim to be on whatever side you want, buddy.

What you can't claim, is that the 3/4 of Americans who support the second amendment protecting an individual right are somehow a loud minority.

The loud minority viewpoint here, make no mistake about it, is yours.

You are an anti-gun extremist, even here on DU.

[Shamash]

94. Quick questions for randys1

Randys1,
Since the NRA was not founded until 1871 and we had all sorts of nifty repeating firearms by then, it would be impossible to blame a non-existent gun lobby during that period. So:

1) where were the "good attorneys" hiding from 1789 until 1871?
2) what were the SPECIAL laws protecting gun manufacturers back then?
3) without the NRA and with Republicans being the party of Abraham Lincoln, who would you blame for those SPECIAL laws?

I mean you can sue successfully, as you should be able to, a ladder mfg for not putting a warning on the thing.

In light of this...

Allergy warning: The comments of randys1 on the topic of gun control come from keyboards that have been in contact with nuts.

[randys1]

95. Wait, you get to call me a nut but I cant call you one LOL

[blueridge3210]

96. Non-responsive. (nt)

[randys1]

98. So you DO Get to call me a nut, guess what would happen if I called you a gun nut

[Shamash]

99. What would happen if someone on DU called me a gun nut? Around here, I'd call it Tuesday.

[randys1]

101. My position is simple, really. Apart from the simple fact that the 2nd only allows for guns

within a well regulated militia (obviously we arent going to waste time arguing about that)

A future of an evolved human race either is a future with MORE guns or less or no guns.

I say less or no guns.

A future of evolved humans involves less or no religion , for instance.

Less or no guns, are a given.

Or there is either no future or one not worth living for.

[blueridge3210]

104. You must have missed a couple of USSC decisions

that clarified that the RKBA was not tied to militia service, but was in fact an individual right. See Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago.

[randys1]

105. I can read...I know what the 2nd says

Look, this is simple, I will say it again

Your future is one where everybody and their uncle, aunt and child has a gun

My future nobody has one

[blueridge3210]

106. "Your future is one where everybody and their uncle, aunt and child has a gun "

Statements like that just make your position look silly. I know of no one on the pro-RKBA side that endorses everyone owning a firearm. Does your future include the police and military being disarmed?

If you know what the 2nd Amendment says then you know that it grants the RKBA to "the people" and not to "the militia" or "the state". That would mean it is an individual right, not a collective right, just as the 1st and 4th Amendments.

[Shamash]

107. That's nice

obviously we arent going to waste time arguing about that

Correct, because you live on Bizarro Earth, and I live on the one where our Constitutional law professor President and his party say that the 2nd is an individual right. On this Earth, that argument is over and has been over for quite a while.

In other matters, tell me:

Did banning alcohol stop alcohol use?
Did banning drugs stop drug use?
Did banning racism end hate crimes?

No? Then exactly how is a gun ban going to do better? People will stop using guns on each other when the people change the way they think and the way they view each other. Your ideas would be exactly as successful for guns as a ban on religion would be for getting rid of that.

My position is simple, really

No, it is simplistic. There is a difference. You have lots of assertions and no arguments. Stating "X is a fact" does not not make it a fact, no matter how much you want it to be one. Much like your statement about a "good attorney" putting all the gun makers out of business. Saying it and not being able to back it up makes you look bad, unless you think your non-stop dodging of the questions paints you in a positive light.

So, are you going to retract that statement, back it up with an argument, or continue to embarrass yourself by avoiding it?

[randys1]

108. You are very angry, so my interaction with you will end after this post.

If suing gun mfgs successfully would NOT be so easy by a good attorney, why do they need special laws preventing attorneys from suing them?

Why in the HELL do you think they need SPECIAL laws that apply ONLY to gun mfgs?

Just for the fun of it?

You should have thought this through before coming at me so hard.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910

As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

Bush signing PLCAA, photo by Paul MorseIn 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, a Media Matters search of Nexis revealed major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity.

Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability":

[blueridge3210]

109. *Sigh*

The PLCAA codified into statute a long-standing legal principle that manufacturers of legal products are not responsible for the criminal actions of 3rd parties who use their legal products to commit crimes. You cannot successfully sue Craftsman if someone uses their ladder to burglarize your house. You cannot sue Ford if the impaired driver that totals your vehicle is driving a Taurus. You cannot sue Sports Authority if someone uses a baseball bat to break your arm.

Firearms manufacturers were faced with nuisance lawsuits filed solely to impose huge costs to defend themselves. These lawsuits were for damages caused by the criminal actions by 3rd parties using their legal products. Firearms manufacturers are still subject to the same product liability standards as others; if their firearm malfunctions and causes injury to the end user they can still be sued. (See Remington).

The aircraft industry was also faced with nuisance lawsuits on behalf of people injured or killed in plane crashes where defect could not be determined but were equally likely to have been the result of poor maintenance. They were given limited indemnity after a period of years after the manufacture of the aircraft.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. Media Matters? Where Brock had his minions violate DC gun control laws so he could be protected?

[randys1]

115. Media Matters attacked at DU....LOL wow...amazing

I KNOW i have seen it all now

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. Truth is not an attack. Brock violated DC gun control laws to acquire and possess a gun.

To call this hypocrisy would be to understate the matter.

[Shamash]

117. You are completely clueless

If you want to understand why we have that law, you should look at the actual cases and comments by the judges on these cases as they were dismissed or otherwise thrown out of court. Quoting a third-hand opinion from a group you already agree with is not likely to teach you anything new. But at least you're good at it.

I'm not hostile, I'm just ashamed of you. People like you generate comments like "that's a liberal?" in the same way someone points at Westboro Baptist and says "that's a Christian?". I have to apologize on behalf of liberals and say "we're not all like that".

And you still did not answer the question of why a "good attorney" didn't already put the gun makers out of business a century before you were born. Just think of all the lives we would have saved if someone had thought to sue axe makers out of business after that nasty Lizzie Borden business. Or at least mandated some appropriate labels for them.

Warning: Do not use this axe for murder sprees. Warranty void if used on human flesh. Choking hazard, do not eat. Hold by handle, not the blade.

I guess "my interaction with you will end after this post" sounds nicer than "running away with your tail between your legs". You'll be back, if not here, then elsewhere. Anytime you want, I'll be more than happy to hold up a cheese grater and let you repeatedly pound your face against it before you claim victory and stagger away.

[blueridge3210]

102. Where did I call you a nut?

Oh, that's right, I never did. More lies from the pro-control side. Business as usual.

[randys1]

103. it was shamash

Allergy warning: The comments of randys1 on the topic of gun control come from keyboards that have been in contact with nuts.

i get lost sometimes dealing with gun folks and so i may have confused you for that person

[Shamash]

100. Still waiting for an answer to the questions. Or is deflection and poutrage all you have today?

[beevul]

3. Hey, PLCAA detractors...

Hey, PLCAA detractors: This is why the plcaa, the 'most reprehensible' piece of legislation blah blah blah' was necessary.


Defend it in the face of this, if you can.

[jimmy the one]

4. just reporting 'his' facts

va mtn man: Just reporting the facts, without emotional embellishments for all to see.

You're reporting just the facts YOU want to be known, in other words pro gun propagunda.
The judge who ruled on this case is pro gun, ruled pro gun in another case, a republican, Nixon appointee, evidently grew rightwing as the years gone by:

Federal judge allows citizens to challenge post office gun ban.. It seems the Postal Service has precedent on its side, though Judge Richard Matsch wants to hear arguments. A couple in Colorado is challenging post offices' status as "sensitive places," stating that the gun ban on Postal Service property makes it impossible for them to retrieve their mail. The couple lives far from town and does not receive home delivery. Both are concealed-carry permit holders.
The Postal Service attempted to have the suit dismissed, as the Supreme Court has ruled that restricting the right to have firearms is not violated in "sensitive places." Judge Matsch's refusal for dismissal means that both sides of the case will prepare arguments to be heard at a later date. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/movie-theater-shooting/parents-of-jessica-ghawi-involved-in-brady-center-lawsuit-against-online-ammunition-seller

Ghawi's parents, appeared with attorneys and representatives of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to announce the lawsuit against Lucky Gunner and other businesses. Doing business as BulkAmmo. com, that business {lucky gunner} sold the shooting defendant 4,325 rounds for various weapons less than a month before the shooting, according to an ATF special agent's testimony http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/movie-theater-shooting/parents-of-jessica-ghawi-involved-in-brady-center-lawsuit-against-online-ammunition-seller
Ghawi's parents are not seeking monetary damages, but do want to spare other families from similar tragedies by getting a court to order the companies to follow "reasonable business practices." .. lawsuit accuses 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.

mtn man: ..and they are appealing the case to a higher court too loose some more

Hopefully the appeal won't be heard by a rightwing pro gun judge. Do you really think an appellate court will stick it to the plaintiffs as the rightwing kangaroo court-judge did?

[blueridge3210]

5. I would expect the appellate judge

to uphold the law as written and enforce the attorney's fees as required by law. Political affiliation should have no bearing on the application of the law as written.

[Fred Sanders]

9. The law, as written by the NRA and gun death supporters, is a special Colorado carve out for only gun manufacturers...corruption pays.

Why are facts like Kryptonite to NRA defenders. By the way the legal costs were assessed against the two grieving parents of the Aurora massacre, not the Brady campaign, and is under appeal.

[oneshooter]

10. So you are claiming that if I am hit by a stolen car, driven by a person running from the police

then I, if i survive, or my heirs can sue the cars manufacturer for the damages?


I really don't know why i am asking this as the poster doesn't want to answer "difficult" questions.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Yes, that is exactly what I mean, of course it is. Silly analogy. How about that special NRA gun manufacturer protection law?

By "difficult" question I assume you mean incomprehensible?

[oneshooter]

15. You mean the law to prevent firearms manufacturers from being sued for the illegal use

of their products? That law? I would agree to removing it if you could get all manufacturing company's to accept the same liability.

Think you can do that?

[randys1]

78. Cars manufactured to kill people? Which company is doing that, I wanna see that LOL

You see questions like this are why you need to hire an attorney if you want to know what is what.

I wont explain further than that, time is money.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. Having a gun designed to kill could be useful if confronted by a

home invader/stalker/rapist/etc.

Self defense is a basic human right.

[oneshooter]

110. For a device that was not developed to "kill people"

They sure are doing a fine job of it.

[sarisataka]

12. Are you aware

both parents are employees of the Brady Campaign?

[MicaelS]

16. When you attempt to ...

Engage in social engineering through the courts, and it bites you in the ass, it is on one's fault but yours.

[blueridge3210]

17. Um, no. You would be wrong.

The PLCAA simply codifies into statutory law the exact same protection EVER OTHER manufacturer of a lawful product enjoys regarding criminal use of their products by third parties. No other manufacturer was subject to nuisance lawsuits designed to force them out of business. Not Ford, not Craftsman, not Budweiser. It's the gun-control proponents that are allergic to facts.

[Fred Sanders]

18. Poor, poor babies, the gun manufacturers, being "harrassed", poor helpless babies needing special protection.

Crying tears for weapons factories? Your tears, I guess.

My tears are for the children and fellow citizens killed by their only for killing products.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. And suing businesses from manufacturers...

...through local shops will raise them from the dead.

[blueridge3210]

23. The gun manufacturers were being targeted by lawsuits

aimed at holding them to a level of liability that no other manufacturer was subjected to. The sole purpose of the lawsuits was to force the manufacturers to spend time and money fighting back and to drive them out of business. I'm not crying; the law and court precedent are on my side. I see a lot of tears coming from the pro-control side over there ongoing impotence and irrelevancy.

[Fred Sanders]

24. Welcome to Full Ignore #46.....gun lovers love gun manufacturers who need special legal protection from

liabity for selling WMD's to civilians by the hundreds of millions. We all get it.

Tears for guns, vitriol for gun victims. Will never get that.

[blueridge3210]

25. The law was passed in response to

"a special legal assault" by people attempting to hold the manufacturers to a liability imposed on no other manufacturer of a legal product. I'll take your "Full Ignore" as an admission that your argument lacks any merit or logic to support it so you have to run and hide.

[beevul]

32. Watch it Mister!

'Double secret ignore' comes next, I've heard.

[blueridge3210]

33. Oh, noes!

Not "Double Secret Ignore!!!!" Whatever will I do?

[Duckhunter935]

34. I am on a couple of those lists

[blueridge3210]

35. Yup. Clearly, it keeps you up at night........

I'm curious; your unit was Air Defense. Did you focus on fixed wing, or all air assets?

[Duckhunter935]

36. Started out HAWK

Both fixed and rotary. Moved to Patriot, fixed, cruise and missiles. Now THAAD missile defense. Still supervise patriot instructors.

[oneshooter]

38. My middle son is a Army medic.

Did a year tour in Kuwait in a Patriot Battery. Told me he was bored to tears, all he got was ouchies and boo-boo's. Said that most of "injuries" were from practice reloads.

Called most of them "kids playing and falling".

Did a year on Afgan with the 10th Mountain before that.
Said it did get "exciting" at times.

[Duckhunter935]

39. Cool

Yep reloads can be dangerous. THAAD is much better in that respect. Hope he stays safe. Love the medics👍👍

[oneshooter]

40. After he talked to me he called it"Sick, Lame and lazy call"

I think a little of this old Marine rubbed off on him.

[Human101948]

84. yeah, it is exciting when people get blown up and wounded...

too bad your son isn't bored more often.

[oneshooter]

111. Yes it can get that way, have you ever been in the weeds?

[Duckhunter935]

37. Have not slept in months, lol

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. "WMDs"

[TeddyR]

27. Not sure they were being "harrassed"

They were sued by folks bringing a frivolous claim, prevailed, and were rightly awarded attorney's fees. Federal district court is not the place to make a political statement.

[randys1]

79. No shit. And yet what you are saying seems incomprehensible to some.

[TeddyR]

26. The law in Colorado

Is similar or identical to the law across the country. The parents will lose on appeal as well. You don't get to sue a business for selling a legal product in a legal manner. You do understand that the official platform of the Democratic party (President Obama, candidate Clinton and Sanders, former President Clinton, etc.) is that the 2d Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, right? In other words, both Democrats and Republicans agree that Heller correctly interpreted the 2d Amendment.

[virginia mountainman]

6. You know Jimmy..

You really should help the Brady campaign lawyers. Since you clearly know so much about the subject at hand.. They clearly don't know as much as you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. "You really should help the Brady campaign lawyers." Perhaps he is already doing so

Which could explain many things...

[Fred Sanders]

52. The fact that the judiciary in gerrymandered Red states has become infested with RW extremists,

particularly at trial court levels, not so much Supreme Court and less Federal Court at all levels, is another fact that will be denied by gun-lovers.

There wil be no debate, there will be the usual pleas to be accepted at DU as any other member.

[blueridge3210]

55. Um, no.

The judge applied the law as written. The law was written to codify into statute a long-standing legal principle that manufacturers of legal products are not responsible for the criminal misuse of those products by 3rd parties. Passage of the law was necessitated by ill-advised lawsuits against gun manufacturers attempting to hold them to a legal standard that did not apply to any other manufacturer of a legal product.

The lawsuit against Bushmaster was removed from Federal courts to CT courts in an attempt to circumvent the PLCAA; this case will be remanded back to the Federal Courts. They will apply the provisions of the PLCAA, dismiss the lawsuit, and order the plaintiffs to pay Bushmaster's legal bills.

[virginia mountainman]

130. UPDATE... They give up..... Time to write the check $$$$$$ !

Time to "stick it" to the Looser Brady Bunch!!

http://www.wbir.com/story/news/2015/07/21/action-against-lucky-gunner-over-online-ammo-sales-dropped/30495515/

From DonP's thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172172192

[deathrind]

57. Common sense

Firearms control is never going to happen. If none of the massacres in just the last five years (esp Sandyhook) can't bring it about nothing will.

The 2nd amendment says nothing about ammo that is where the focus should be.

[blueridge3210]

59. The First Amendment says nothing about printer's ink.

Yet court cases have established clear precedent regarding attempts to engage a back-door prohibition by excessive regulations and/or taxes that result in inhibiting exercise of a constitutional right. The same would apply to any attempt to prohibit or excessively tax ammunition.

[deathrind]

69. Ink =/= Ammo....

[blueridge3210]

72. Ink = Ammo

Both are necessary to exercise the right. One cannot print a newspaper without printer's ink; one cannot fire a gun without ammunition. Both are equally protected as being necessary to exercise the right. Both cannot be capriciously infringed upon. The case law on this, like the case law supporting the PLCAA is quite clear.

[virginia mountainman]

61. You do realize..

Besides the very correct thing "blue ridge" is telling you about. That many people reload ammunition as a hobby..I do...

Go ahead, create a nice and extremely profitable black market for us.....Heck, do you want to know how to make it? I can teach you in 20 minutes, how to make workable ammunition from things you find in a typical country store...

Heck I may even post how to do it HERE for all to see....

So, keep the focus on things you know nothing about.....

[deathrind]

68. See my reply above. N/T

[Travis_0004]

63. I could send a first year law student to defend the right of ammo in front of the supreme court

Frankly, it would be such an easy case that a first year law student might be overqualified.

I could also quote McDonald vs Chicago.

"it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

[deathrind]

67. Nice jump to conclusion.

My post said nothing about restricting ammo in any form. Please go ahead and send your student...

[Shamash]

70. Aren't you the one who just said

The 2nd amendment says nothing about ammo that is where the focus should be.

So, if your post is not about "restricting ammo in any form", what exactly is your focus on ammo about?

[Duckhunter935]

71. Free ammo

That would be cool!

[tularetom]

62. I'm sorta late to this thread and I really have not much to add except

I feel bad for all the families who lost loved ones in this incident, but the Brady people took advantage of their grief and finagled them into filing a frivolous unwinnable lawsuit based on a ridiculous premise.

I hope these parents were shrewd enough to secure a commitment from the Brady group to foot the bill in the event this case went down the shitter.

Whatever. Justice was done and I'm happy with the outcome.

[Fred Sanders]

64. Stay tuned, the outcome is yet to come.

[Duckhunter935]

65. Sorry

But it will not change as much as you want it to. It will just cost them even more money to get the same result.

[pablo_marmol]

66. "It amazes me how one side, can so turn it around, and use the other side's own money against them."

You're not kidding, VM! That's the RKBA jiu-jitsu at work!



Meanwhile, The Brady Bunch continues to self-destruct!

[stone space]

73. Why do some folks cheer on arms merchants when...

...they kick families of gun victims in the face?

That's a level of hatred for gun victims that I'm surprised to see on a Democratic site.

I just don't understand the hate.

And how the hate becomes so extreme.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. It's not hte for the victims but you know that. Any delight in loss is reserved strictly for the

Brady campaign. They are the ones who manipulated the family into filing a frivolous lawsuit. They are the ones you should be mad at.

[stone space]

75. This is about hatred for gun victims, plain and simple.

Families of gun victims being attacked by the arms industry is what is being cheered on here.

And such hate has no place on a Democratic board.

[blueridge3210]

77. Um, no, it's not about "hatred".

It's about the rule of law, plain and simple. The law provided for awarding attorney's fees to the defendants in these types of suits as the vendor is not responsible for the criminal actions of 3rd parties who are using their legal products during the commission of a crime.

As the judge noted, the Brady Org had to know the provisions of the law yet chose to file the lawsuit anyway. The award is clearly justified.

[tularetom]

81. I don't hate anybody in the world...

but I have a pretty low opinion of people who would take advantage of a family's grief in order to get them to file a baseless lawsuit to further their own prejudices.

Why not sue the manufacturer of the automobile that Mr Holmes drove to the theater in order to perpetrate his murderous rampage?

[stone space]

82. You can't blame anybody but the arms industry for their...

...direct and blatant attacks on the families of gun victims.

And it is disgusting to see such attacks cheered on here at DU.

[beevul]

85. Are you reading things in reverse?

You can't blame anybody but the arms industry for their...direct and blatant attacks on the families of gun victims.

It appears you have it backwards.

The families in question were the ones making a legal attack.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. Who's to blame for DUIs, sexual assault and domestic violence? Alcohol distillers or the criminals?

[blueridge3210]

88. But, but, but...............

GUNZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tularetom]

91. Nobody "attacked" the family of a victim

The Brady bunch conned them into filing a baseless lawsuit against a merchant for selling ammunition to a customer.

Why not sue the state of Colorado for failing to recognize that Mr Holmes was a dangerous loony and having him locked up before he was able to shoot anybody?

Why not sue the theater for admitting him that day?

See how stupid it sounds? Thats how stupid it is to blame the store that sold him the ammo.

[blueridge3210]

112. He's back on time out.

It appears he doesn't know how to behave.

[tularetom]

113. You know, I sort of knew I was wasting my time when I responded to that first post

But I'm a lifelong optimist, I actually believe people are open to listening to the opinions of others.

Oh well, screw him.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

118. I guess if you plan to time out yourself...

...you may as well flame-out.

[DonP]

119. Wow, he didn't even last one day back?

[blueridge3210]

120. Nope.

It certainly looks like being put on time out feeds some narcissistic desire to see himself as a victim. He pushes to have his posts hidden. He did the same thing on DI; about to come off his time out there as well.

[Lurks Often]

121. LMAO, looks like the religion and spirituality group is tired of him too

I expected the 2 hides to be here.

I'm sure he'll be back on July 15th

We should really start a pool and donate the money to a charity of the winner's choice

[GGJohn]

122. Nope,

he won't be back until Aug. 1st.
He has 6 hides now.

[Duckhunter935]

123. Wow 6, very impressive

Welcome back!!

[GGJohn]

124. Thanks.

I've no doubt that my return has been noted by certain individuals.

[Duckhunter935]

126. I am sure

I am back to zero myself😀

[Duckhunter935]

125. Wow, 2 hides within 10 minutes

Thanks religion group and the jurors 👍

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. Seeing as you have demonstrated the lack of a functional definition for murder you

lack the credibility to define the terms of "hatred" and "Democratic."

You don't even affirm a woman's right to self-defense so what makes you think you're concern for victims is viewed as carrying any degree of sincerity?

[pablo_marmol]

83. Not surprised that you **hatefully** twist my disdain for The Brady Bunch

into hate for gun violence victims. Par for the course in your filthy world. You've pulled this dirty move before. What's your game, SS? Trying to provoke Democratic supporters of the RKBA into getting posts hidden, or are you actually so full of (gun) hate that you can't process what others actually write?

[Duckhunter935]

127. not just gun hate

seems he hates some others too, look at the hides he received in religion. He is now back on vacation and the admins should really look at his account.

[pablo_marmol]

128. You are correct.

If a Democratic supporter of the RKBA engaged in the ugly smearing that SS has, they'd be tombstoned in a N.Y.C. HEARTBEAT.

Luckily for him there is a brazen double-standard in rule enforcement.

[Duckhunter935]

129. Yes

I have seen that, sadly