Will They Survive?

So we talked about the new Brady BS Lawsuit here, I think we all agree it is a weak lawsuit at best.

But then comes this from Dave Hardy, who unlike me, is a lawyer, and a good one at that!

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).

So it looks like it probably is simply going to be dismissed because the Brady Lawyers aren’t following the law, and while it is a very weak case, it’s a case that is past the statute of limitations!

From Sebastian:

If I were them, I’d be looking into what sanctions are available in Colorado against plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits with an aim to punch back twice as hard.

I believe the best strategy to discourage the Brady Center from continuing to harass and harangue people out of exercising their constitutional rights is to make sure they pay for this to the fullest extent available under the law. I believe in the past, our side was generally reluctant to play dirty with the Bradys, for fear of the negative PR associated with the big, bad gun industry attacking poor little gun control advocates.

Well first with groups like the NRA gaining members hand-over-fist, while it is a HUGE group, it looks a LOT smaller (in the political sense) from the inside than from the outside. Also Michael Bloomberg has done a lion’s share of work unintentionally making the gun control movement synonymous with wealthy political insiders running top-down groups. So really if Lucky Gunner takes the Brady Campaign to the cleaners in a counter-suit it will really look more like young entrepreneurs sticking it to entrenched Washington Lobbyists on the national stage.

But here’s my bigger question. Will the Brady Campaign survive this? From all accounts whatever the Brady Campaign has spent on filing this suit, as well as promoting it’s existence will be for nothing, and then comes the risk of a VERY good counter-suit, given that ANY lawyer should have known what the statute of limitations were, and should know the previous tort law precedence that this is going against.

Now this is all happening to what has become the bygone face of gun control. When I was anti-gun the Brady Campaign was the big hero fighting against the NRA. When I switched sides to the pro-gun side the Brady Campaign was the biggest threat to American Freedom. When I started this blog most anti-gun work was split between the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation.

But as the tide has turned on the gun rights movement, Micheal Bloomberg has been gaining more popularity in the ever shrinking pool of anti-Second-Amendment activists. But the base is getting REALLY small, and of that base, there aren’t THAT many who are wealthy. Lots of the voluntary supporters of Gun Control are ultra-“Progressives” who share a lot in common with the Occupy Wall Street rabble. People with worthless degrees and pie-in-the-sky Socialist dreams.

The donations to the Brady Campaign have to be little more than a trickle, and this case is going to cost them BIG!

I really think there may be a big chance that this case will break the Brady Bank.

What do you think?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Will They Survive?

  1. Wally says:

    Interesting to note who is NOT named in that suit.

    The gun manufacturer who will not be named, but I will refer to as BrazilianSlave.

    See, back in the day BS did actually pay to settle such a frivolous lawsuit from the victims of the DCSniper. DickyD, asshat in charge of BS, figured it would be easier to pay than to fight – and that set a poor precedent, largely disdained through the industry.

    After that, the industry mobilized and now has federal protection from suits against the manufacturers for misuse of firearms.

  2. Alan says:

    As long as there are wealthy people willing to squander their money supporting lost causes, the Brady bunch will survive in some fashion. They may be ineffective and irrelevant but they’ll still be there, just like all the wackos that believe in UFOs and Flat Earth.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      You are correct, there will always be some form of a Brady Campaign, even if it’s just Joan Peterson blogging from her kitchen.

      Still when it comes to a small base with a smaller number of wealthy benefactors, they will have to choose who gets the check.

      People might have liked Betamax as much as VHS, but they had to choose who got the money, and Beta died.

      I think when some wealthy Moonbat wants to throw money at guns I see them giving to Bloomberg, or maybe Joyce, but not Brady which is obviously dying.

      They will always exist, but when Dan Gross has his paycheck bounce it will cease to be the same group it once was.

  3. Ponklemoose says:

    I think that Lucky Gunner should retaliate for the publicity alone. I know I’d be inclined to spend my ammo money with the guys who gave Bloomie’s puppets the finger.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I think they have no reason not to throw everything reasonable at this suit. Looks to me like they have a strong possibility of winning, which means $$$ both to build the business, and offset legal fees. It also will prevent other companies from being sued by anti-gunners in specific, and anti-freedom “Progressives” in general. Also for as much as they tout that Americans support them, I don’t see it as true. If that’s right, then it will be a company generally perceived by the public as “Good” trouncing an organization generally seen by the public as “Evil”.

      It is just win-win-win, if the case is that solid!

  4. rd says:

    I would support a counter-suit by Lucky Gunner with giving Lucky Gunner my business. And If the lawsuit is as groundless as stated, if LG files complaints against the individual lawyers and their firms.

    It would be interesting if LG ended up owning the trademarks, brand, and web presence of “The Brady Campaign” and all its subsidiaries.

  5. GomeznSA says:

    These unwarranted (to anyone with even the least bit of common sense) suits WILL continue, even though most of them have been abject failures. They (the lawyers) will continue to file them as long as a) there are no sanctions taken against them for filing them and wasting the court’s time; and b) as long as there is even the least possibility of ‘winning’ one of them because the payday will be tremendous. Those are the reasons that many states are enacting ‘loser pays’ statutes – I’d be willing to bet that the suits are NOT being filed in one of those states.

    • Jack/OH says:

      GomeznSA, I agree with you about the suits. Their goal seems to me to bankrupt or exhaust on-line gun and ammo retailers, and soften up the remainder for new, restrictive legislation. (My former ad sales company, where I was a manager, won a legal case against us. The litigation was so costly and protracted the owner closed up shop.)

      Three guys in a gun shop. Joe wants 2000 rounds of ammo. Sam wants fifty rounds of ammo. Bob wants one round. What’s an honest retailer supposed to infer about the “presumed intent” of these customers based solely on the quantity of ammo they want to buy?

      Is anyone else seeing a First Amendment issue in compelling gun shop owners and their retail workers to question customers about their purchases to satisfy a purported government interest? (BTW-I’m not a lawyer.)

      • Weerd Beard says:

        Ooh you make an interesting point. Buying bulk ammo COULD infer frugality, training, prepping, market speculation, or mass murder. One box of ammo could be ANYTHING. But one round, now that’s interesting.

        to quote the movie “The Peacemaker”: “I’m not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I’m terrified of the man who only wants one.”

        But that’s NOT what we’re talking about here.

        • Jack/OH says:

          Weer’d, yeah. I was thrown off-base by the unbalanced, wobbly news accounts of that Colorado psychotic’s ammo purchasing. I suspect the “unbalance” was mostly unintentional. Naïve, young journalists with zero gun experience who are fighting for column-inches, etc. You know, pump up the “thousands of rounds” angle.

          I had to sit back for a bit before it sunk in that the connection between “bulk purchasing” and “presumptive intent” (of wrongdoing) is extremely shaky.

          I hope that lawsuit gets cut to shreds.

    • Anonymous says:

      In law, as in economics, “common sense” is an unwelcome visitor at best. See also, the Wikipedia articles on the hot new theories of how to read law that the Supreme Court judges of the future are writing so many papers on at Harvard Law School, “Legal Realism” and “Critical Legal Theory.”

      The kritocracy does what it will, and we suffer what we must. Got ammo?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *