It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If the seller did nothing wrong why were they sued?
originally posted by: buster2010
Why don't they sue their lawyer who should have told them that it was useless to file the lawsuit in the first place. It's the bloodsucking leeches like their lawyer that is a problem with the legal system.
The judge dismissed our case because, he said, these online sellers had special immunity from the general duty to use reasonable care under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and a Colorado immunity law.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If the seller did nothing wrong why were they sued?
Simply a money grabbing exercise by the parents and their lawyers.
Attorneys at Arnold and Porter and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence brought the lawsuit for us, pro bono. We knew the risks of bringing the case. We knew that Colorado and Congress have given special protection of the gun industry, and we knew that under Colorado law we could even be ordered to pay attorneys' fees because of those special protections.
But we thought it was important to take a stand, to fight to prevent other families from suffering as we have. We did not seek any money in our case. We just wanted injunctive relief -- to have these companies act reasonably when they sold dangerous materiel, like 100-round ammunition magazines, ammunition, body armor, and tear gas.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Milah
While I see why the parents would want to sue the company, it isn't the companies fault that the shooter decided to use it the way he did.
originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: Milah
They should sue the lawyer that filed the case. He should have considered the possibility the case had no merit and would open up the plaintiffs to damages. Unless he got something in writing that he informed them that their case was possibly a losing cause.
originally posted by: buster2010
Why don't they sue their lawyer who should have told them that it was useless to file the lawsuit in the first place. It's the bloodsucking leeches like their lawyer that is a problem with the legal system.
originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: Milah
Well, whereas I do feel sorry for these people....and for their horrible loss.... they knew what they were doing. They felt anointed with a sense of being "right". Now, as per our societies rules, they are liable.
Go ahead. Flame. I've got my flame-retardant undies on. I know nobody will see past the emotion in this situation.
We live in a "feel good" era. Not one of being responsible for your own actions. And, no, I do not feel the ammunition manufacturer or dealer is guilty here. If I kill you with a spoon, should the spoon manufacturer or dealer be responsible for making certain I wouldn't have used it to kill you with?
The only person guilty is the person who willfully pulled the trigger.
Guns don't kill. Ammunition doesn't kill. These are inert and non-sentient objects. It takes sentience and will to use them to kill.
People kill.
originally posted by: Soloprotocol
originally posted by: buster2010
Why don't they sue their lawyer who should have told them that it was useless to file the lawsuit in the first place. It's the bloodsucking leeches like their lawyer that is a problem with the legal system.
Yeah, if only the lawyer had told them the same as the judge told them they would not be 200+k out of pocket.
The judge dismissed our case because, he said, these online sellers had special immunity from the general duty to use reasonable care under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and a Colorado immunity law.
Maybe they should go after the Lawyer.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: chuck258
That's nice.
There is no N in the moniker btw. Thought at least your didn't add a t after the first S like most.