Families of the victims of the DC area snipers are suing the manufacturer of the gun used in the killings AND the store where the gun was purchased. The families are represented, of course, by the Brady Center.
From the lawsuit:
"If Bull's Eye and Bushmaster and the other gun industry defendants had acted responsibly in the sale of their guns, Muhammad and Malvo would not have been able to obtain the assault rifle they needed to carry out their shootings," the lawsuit claims.
Sounds like whoever wrote that is a believer in the Sheryl Crow philosophy of "the best way to avoid problems is not to have any enemies". Are we really supposed to believe that better bookkeeping by the gun shop (or even closure of it by the ATF if conditions warranted it) would have prevented Malvo's and Mohammed's murderous rampage? This is just another example of the anti-gun lobbies simplistic and non-critical thinking. Malvo and Mohammed would have gotten a gun, whether they are legal or not. This kind of pap is just pure nonsense.
Now, I don't know much about the store that sold the gun. If it's found out that they were letting these guns enter the market without proper safeguards, they should be held liable. It does seem like they have an inordinantly high amount of "missing" guns. I guess I don't see where the gun manufacturer comes into the picture, except they are the ones with the most money for the lawyers to mooch.
So, does this mean that a car dealership and the automobile manufacturer is liable if a car is stolen off the lot, and used in the commission of a crime such as DUI in which there are injuries/fatalities? Are Home Depot and the XYZ shear company (sorry, I don't really know who makes guarden shears) responsible if a wife decides to off her husband with a pair of pruning shears?
Why aren't any of the people screaming about the loss of civil liberties upset over actions like this?
Posted by Neal (Nukevet) at January 16, 2003 06:26 PM | TrackBackI haven't seen a more fitting title in a while.
I would like to know when the Brady Bunch started asking the grieving families if they wanted to do this and how many they went through before they found these ones.
I've been to this shop before. It is one of the larger ones in the south sound area. It seemed like a decent enough place, but I never bought anything from them because I found a better price elsewhere. From what I'm able to decern from the local news, it sounds as if they had a dishonest employee/s taking things home and selling them.
That still doesn't excuse the owner for not knowing. I wouldn't be suprised to see the IRS coming after the owner too. There is no way to do an inventory of hundreds of $500+ each firearms and give an honest yearly audit for tax purposes.
My dislike for the BATF makes me want the Bradys to go after them for not doing a check on this shop, but I know that the BATF would just use that as an excuse to do books checks on dealers more often. That may sound like a good thing, but if you've ever seen a BATF audit you'd notice that the Iraqi arms inspectors are amatuers.
My hope is that Bushmaster will be able to prove to a judge that the modifications to their legal product were done by the criminals or the guy from the shop (also a criminal. I hope people see the common thread where) and then be dropped from the suit. But that all depends on which judge they are in front of. Hopefully then the Bradys will see the $$$ gone and drop the suit. But more than likely they will just go after the ammo maker.
It is sad to see the gun industry take a hit like this because one or two %!?/*&@'s decide they want to make some extra $. Of everything I've done in my life I've never been around a group of people more helpfull, honest, and kind than the people I meet at the range.
Posted by: the analog kid on January 17, 2003 05:52 AMIt's anti-smoking lobbyist-tested, anti-gun-lobbyist approved. How sad, how pathetic, how shallow are these people to try to make a buck off of something as tragic as this, the death of a loved one. I can understand suing the shop if they were negligent, but to sue the manufacturer? Were the snipers felons? If not, the sale was legal anyway. Where is the ACLU on this further assault on civil liberties?
Posted by: Pat on January 17, 2003 09:32 PM