| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Lawfare Meets Gun Control |
| 2019-02-05 |
| Hat tip to the Dallas Morning News front page. [Fox 4/Ay Pee] A judge has ruled that victims of a mass shooting at Texas church can move forward with a lawsuit against a sporting goods chain where the gunman bought the weapon and ammunition used in the massacre. I didn't see the rationales in this particular version of the story. The decision Monday by state District Judge Karen Pozza in San Antonio clears the way for families of the 2017 Sutherland Springs shooting to potentially bring their case against Academy Sport & Outdoors before a jury. Well, I'm glad she didn't include me in the list of folks who can be sued. I can't afford the legal fees. Judge Pozza, SJW |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #6 From the first comment at Frank's link: They tried to sue, and lost. In Colorado, you are mandated to pay legal fees to any gun company you try to sue based on customer actions, if you lose. This applies to no other companies, it is a gun industry only privilege. Very sad and nonsensical situation. Actually, it sounds eminently sane. Except for the part about not applying to other industries, I mean. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2019-02-05 12:36 |
| #5 Apparently they've never heard of the financial costs to the parents of the Aurora shooting victims who sued the ammo manufacturer. Their anti-gun proponents didn't cover the $250K ruling, did they? If the store followed all legal procedures and sold a legal product, they likely can't be sued successfully. Hopefully, they'll countersue for illegitimate harassment and get their legal costs covered too |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-02-05 12:29 |
| #4 #1 How about suing Chinese for inventing gunpowder? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-02-05 11:28 |
| #3 Because they can't sue the Air Force? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-02-05 11:24 |
| #2 Don't give 'em ideas, Steve! Anybody sue the fertilizer manufacturer for the Oklahoma City bombing? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2019-02-05 10:49 |
| #1 I didn't see the rationales in this particular version of the story. It was written by journalists. They seem to be creatures utterly lacking in curiosity. Speculation: If the retailer is liable for someone committing a crime with their product, wouldn't that make the retailer's suppliers liable too? You can chase this rabbit all the way back to the folks who mined the iron and cut the timber that eventually went into the weapon. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2019-02-05 09:56 |