« Protestors seem to be getting deperate | Main | New York Times and assault weapons bans »
Brady Campaign sues ammo dealer, etc.
Story here. Brady will sue on behalf of the parents of a child killed in the Aurora CO shooting, against the dealer who sold the ammunition and some unnamed others.
I cannot figure this one out. First, the tort law is pretty clear that (with very narrow exceptions) a person does not have a duty to prevent someone else from committing a crime that harms someone else. Second, how can an ammunition dealer, of all people, be expected to know that a buyer whom he has never met plans on using the ammo in a crime? In other words, even if there was a legal duty, where is the negligence? Third, unless the killer bought all his ammo from that one dealer, how can the dealer be shown to have any involvement?
And to top it off... the murders were committed on July 20, 2012. From what I can see, Colorado has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury. So the statute ran nearly two months ago. Oops. Now, Brady could contend that it's suing for a minor, and the statute of limitations doesn't begin to run until a minor's 18th birthday. BUT the minor died, and the article says the suit is actually brought on behalf of her parents (wrongful death statutes differ somewhat in this respect, in some the suit is brought on behalf of the decedent's estate, in some it's brought by the survivors in their own right).
It does sound like a civil action that is a sure loser, brought in hopes of gaining publicity. That of course runs a big risk of getting hit with sanctions.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
This is part of a much bigger push to eliminate or make it difficult to sell firearms related products online. This month, online advertising networks banned firearms and shooting sports related advertising.
remember that when the Olympics were in London and they wanted to give tickets away to school children tickets to the shooting sports created such an uproar that they were going to reconsider that move. Can't have the kiddies even know such thing as a firearm could be used peaceably in a sport you know.
Since the individual in question used Federal grant money to fund his purchases would that not also make the Federal government libel as well using their train of thought?