Holmes may get the death penalty, but Ammunition Dealers have full immunity
The family of 24-year-old Jessica Ghawi, a victim in the 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, is faced with more than $200,000 in legal costs after a federal judge ordered them to pay attorney’s fees for four ammunition dealers the family attempted to sue.
“They have taken our daughter, and now they want to take our worldly goods,” Lonnie Phillips told MSNBC’s Tamron Hall in a televised interview earlier this week. “I think that’s a little much.”
The legal impediment was:
The Protect the Gun and Ammo Industry Act – 2005 (aka: S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act)
This was such a POS that even Lieberman voted “Nay.” As did Ms. Clinton.
The gun/ammo industry Senate Democrats:
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Ken Salazar (CO)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Max Baucus (MT)
Ben Nelson (NB)
Harry Reid (NV)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Bryan Dorgan (ND)
Arlen Spector (PA)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Robert Byrd (WV)
Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Herb Kohl (WI)
(Not too many of them left to kick around now.)
Republican Senators that balked on this one:
Mike DeWine (OH)
Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Here’s the House Vote for your perusal.
Nice to see that one of my favorite liberal/progressive politician, Sherrod Brown*, voted “Nay.” The same cannot be said for Bernie Sanders. If he wants to claim that it was a rural v. urban vote, then why did Patrick Leahy vote against it?
If Sanders has since changed his position, he should tell us that and why. And what would he say to the parents of Jessica Ghawi who have been ordered to pay $200,000.
Sure wish these folks felt as passionate about protecting the women’s health care industry.
———
* Would be remiss in not noting that Brown defeated the incumbent Mike DeWine in 2006.
Informational Update
July 20, 2012 – Aurora theater massacre
September 16, 2014 press release, Brady Center Sues Online Sellers of Ammunition and Equipment Used in Aurora Movie Theater Massacre.
Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was shot and killed in the attack that left 12 dead and dozens wounded.
The lawsuit alleges that Lucky Gunner, the Sportman’s Guide, BulletProofBodyArmorHQ.com and BTP Arms negligently supplied Holmes.
3/27/15 Denver Post reported that the suit was dismissed. (Order as to the amount plaintiff had to pay came later.)
December 14, 2012 — Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre
December 12, 2015, WaPo:Newtown families sue rifle manufacturer, distributor and seller for wrongful death
…
Bushmaster has been sued before after mass shootings. In 2004, two survivors and the families of six victims in the 2002 Washington-area sniper shootings settled for $2.5 million after filing suit against Bushmaster and a gun shop. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in that case said it was the first time a gunmaker had to pay damages for crimes involving their weapons.
…
Congress and the POTUS sure acted fast on protecting Bushmaster after that, didn’t they?
Despicable — but then, we are discussing the gun industry, after all.
If the family is forced to file for bankruptcy, will the judgment survive the process or be extinguished? I’m not up on bankruptcy law well enough to know.
If the family is broke, this judgment doesn’t seem to fall within those that cannot be discharged. Of course that doesn’t mean that a bankruptcy judge would extinguish it.
It was a frivolous suit. Their attorney should have to eat the cost.
Why do we have a federal law that shields the gun/ammo industry from third party liability suits?
It was like suing General Motors for a hit and run. Actually, that would have been like suing the gun manufacturer. Suing the ammunition maker would have been more like suing Chevron for the hit and run.
It’s frivolous. It was quite right for the manufacturer to request compensation for the costs of the frivolous suit. The lawyer who brought the suit should have known better. He should pay. He was the responsible professional.
As a product, guns/ammo is unique in that using as intended it’s supposed to injure and kill animals. So, it’s not at all like a victim of a vehicular injury suing GM. A closer analogy would be a second hand smoke lung cancer victim. Is there a law granting immunity for cigarette manufacturers? iirc, states, that would be standing in for third party victims received huge amounts of money from tobacco companies.
At one time, I’m sure that suits against a tobacco company by a smoker or family of a deceased smoker would have been considered “frivolous.” There was not, however, a law that granted tobacco companies liability immunity. We settle all liability disputes through our tort legal system and not statutory system. Including the determination of the frivolity of a suit and charging a plaintiff for a defendant’s legal costs.
Off the top of my head, I can only think of one industry with a legal immunity — nuclear power. The rationale for that is that our society/economy needs power and due to the potential catastrophic costs of an accident, private insurance isn’t available to nuclear power players.
The attorney may or may not have screwed up. But attorneys screw up all the time. However, the only way to test existing tort and statutory law is to bring suit. CU sure looked frivolous to me — but the SCOTUS not only disagreed with that but widened the case until it was barely recognizable from the original suit.
Ah! But the tobacco companies lied about safety when they knew it wasn’t true. That’s fraud. All the businesses involved in making and selling guns and ammunition are forthright that their product can easily kill someone else. No fraud.
Now there would be fraud if say a gun tended to explode and injure the shooter. Likewise ammunition. That would be a better analogy to tobacco.
If the gun/ammo industry were so honest, why does it employ the NRA to disseminate lies? Why does it oppose the collection of data relevant to the gun shooting, injury, and killing?
I’m not particularly empathetic with those that choose to smoke and don’t accept the risks. The first Surgeon General’s warning was issued in 1964 and a decade before that reputable research publications were available in the press. Of course the manufacturers disputed that in their advertising – and how much advertising isn’t based on lies that the manufacturers aren’t aware of? In 1970 Congress banned all TV and radio ads.
But you’re refusing to acknowledge my point which is that Congress didn’t pass a legal immunity law for tobacco companies. Lawyers and victims of tobacco relation health issues were allowed to pursue their claims in the courts.
If the gun/ammo industry were so honest, why does it employ the NRA to disseminate lies? Why does it oppose the collection of data relevant to the gun shooting, injury, and killing?
And why are doctors gagged from talking with their patients about the public health dangers/risks of gun ownership?
Lawyers and victims of tobacco relation health issues were allowed to pursue their claims in the courts.
This reminds me of the recent conservative flap about Title IX violations. A discussion over at Crooked Timber was very interesting. Rich Puchalsky made persuasive arguments, to my mind:
Well bows and arrows and traps too.
Poor Cecil.
A friend of mine at work is supporting Clinton in the primary over this issue alone.
Speaking of the women’s health care industry, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski both voted in favor of allowing a vote on defunding PP.
Personally, as a purely practical political matter, I wouldn’t touch the gun/ammo issue from a regulatory perspective. However, government is quite effective at collecting and disseminating information that the public needs to form their opinion. Unfortunately, Republicans block funding such information collection by federal public health agencies. Thus, we don’t even know the true extent of the harm weapons do and have to rely on The Guardian to collect a sliver of the data, specifically, shooting deaths by LEOs.
Drives me nuts that those who claim to oppose government funds for health care because of the cost want to shut down one of the lowest cost and effective primary care providers. These are very stupid and/or hypocritical people that should not have any say in public policy.
Women have no special claim to protecting the lives and health of other women. Only feminists do — and some of the very best feminists are men.
With one exception, Elizabeth Warren got it right in her floor speech yesterday. Good speech, good delivery (perfect emotional pitch). Surprisingly rare for a politician to make such a solid argument.
Where did she get it wrong then?
WRT to women that seek an abortion at PP: “For a woman that is making one of the most difficult decisions of her entire life”
Have known too many women where the decision was far from the most difficult ones they’ve had to make in their lives. Most were grateful that they had the option not to be forced to choose between raising a child they were unprepared for and relinquishing the child to adoption.