Friday, October 2, 2015

Gun Law

In the case of someone v Lucky Gunner, the courts ruled that Lucky gunner could not possibly have known that its customer would use the ammunition to shoot all those people in the theater in Aurora, and the courts subsequently ruled that the plaintiffs should have known that their suit was frivolous and vexatious and ordered them to pay Lucky Gunners legal costs which are running to about $250K.

One of Bloomberg's minion groups egged the family into filing the suit but of course when the whole thing went south, they disappeared.

So here's another similar suit, Various people v Bushmaster in which Bushmaster, a subsidiary of Remington, is being told that they should have known that Mrs. Lanza's son would steal the rifle and shoot his mother and everybody else at Newtown. A federal judge with a rather colorful reputation has kicked the case back to the state level where it is thought the plaintiffs will have a better chance of succeeding.

This is short term thinking. A good trial lawyer can give an after dinner talk at a club meeting, and in 10 minuted will have everyone in the room in tears over the injustice and abuse suffered by the chickens they just ate. On appeal, however, they do not get to try the same tactic in front of a superior court judge but rather are required to defend the fine points of the law. The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is pretty solid defense against charges of not being clairvoyant, and the plaintiffs attorneys must know this.

So what's to keep them from also being held liable for Bushmasters legal costs in this case?

No comments: