|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 29, 2015, 08:25 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Score one for the good guys
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...er-dismissing/I didn't expect to see this, and certainly the Brady Center didn't expect it either. Will this stop their assault on arms and ammunition dealers, whether online or otherwise? Highly doubtful, as they are highly motivated and well funded. Of note is the Brady Center's evolving duty of care for such vendors:
"If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes." Huh? And how are they to do this? Glad to see we have a federal judge that didn't fall for the Brady nonsense. And sweet indeed that he ordered the Brady Center to pay Lucky Gunner's legal fees. |
June 29, 2015, 10:15 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: April 2, 2015
Posts: 97
|
this is good news too bad it was even was a cort case in the first place
|
June 29, 2015, 12:36 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,238
|
Excellent, thanks for posting. I agree, shouldn't have gone to court.
There will be more, hopefully they pay again if they loose
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
June 29, 2015, 03:43 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
They'll appeal that ruling, no doubt.
|
June 29, 2015, 10:12 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
If you go to Lucky Gunner's website, they are donating the legal reimbursement to other gun rights organizations and you can vote for which organizations get it. They'll award it based on percentage vote.
I'm personally voting for Florida Carry
__________________
Certified Gunsmith (On Hiatus) Certified Armorer - H&K and Glock Among Others You can find my writings at my website, pottsprecision.com. |
June 29, 2015, 11:21 PM | #6 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I could have sworn that we've discussed this previously, but I can't find it. Yes indeed, a good day for Lucky Gunner and Sportsmans Guide.
Is it too much to hope for that the Brady Bunch can't afford the payment, and will have to file for bankruptcy? Can you evade a court-ordered penalty through bankruptcy? (I hope not.) Last edited by Aguila Blanca; June 29, 2015 at 11:28 PM. |
June 30, 2015, 06:55 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Even though it's not his "bunch," Bloomberg could make the payment out of his lunch money if push came to shove.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
June 30, 2015, 10:07 AM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
Don't count the $ just yet, the Bradys (et all) have taken it to appeal, and until/unless they lose there, NO money will be paid.
Quote:
"people like James Holmes"...what / who is that? According to what I have seen, being of legal age, with no criminal record, does NOT put you in a prohibited person category. Like most of the rampage killers, until the rampage, they did nothing legally wrong. Today, nearly 3 years after the shooting, AND his arrest, Holmes STILL HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED, although it looks like another few months might finally end the process. Absent a conviction, or legal mental adjudication, it is entirely legal to sell weapons to those who meet all the other qualifiers (age, citizenship, residence, etc.), and the fact that later they may do evil is not something anyone without GOD like vision can say with certainty. Suing a retailer because they are not all knowing and all seeing...no logic that I can see there... Might as well sue (every) church, because God did not prevent the killings...makes as much sense to me. Good job by the judge on this one, I think.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
June 30, 2015, 10:15 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
I wonder if 'military-grade equipment' includes canteens, boonie hats and camo, MRE meals, and P38 can openers.
|
July 1, 2015, 05:59 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
This was evidently a complaint brought in state court alleging state claims. According to the award order, state law provides that if an action against an ammunition dealer or manufacturer is dismissed on a motion, then an award of attorney fees to the defendant is mandatory. The appeals court might reduce the fees but would be required to keep some award in place so long as it doesn't reverse the underlying dismissal of the lawsuit.
Sure, this is chump change for Bloomberg, but the award is against the parents who brought the suit. Even if Brady/Bloomberg chip in on the fees, the fee award would have to give other potential plaintiffs reason to pause before filing political lawsuits like this. |
July 1, 2015, 06:40 PM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Of course, it bears mentioning that Lonnie is the Operations Manager for the Brady Campaign and Sandy is the Campaign Manager for the Brady Campaign. Let's see if their employer volunteers to cough up the cash.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 2, 2015, 12:47 PM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: August 13, 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 30
|
fee implications
If the fee is paid, and ponied up by either the Brady Bunch / Bloomberg, won't they still have to claim this as (gift) income and pay taxes on it?
Just a thought. |
July 2, 2015, 12:52 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Good opportunity for some internet articles about Brady Campaign leaving people hanging out to dry, get them some very negative publicity.
|
July 2, 2015, 01:47 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Getting stuck with the legal bill, if that happens, would be pretty much the Phillips' responsibility. It's hard to imagine that they didn't know they were the plaintiffs, and that the lawyers involved were representing them. At some point, they signed a contract for the law firm to represent them. It would have spelled out the terms, and if it didn't say "pro bono" somewhere, or specify that another party would be responsible for the costs...
Don't sign what you don't understand.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
July 2, 2015, 08:39 PM | #15 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
So, do we, the interested public have the legal right to find out who pays the bill (assuming someone actually does?)
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the award of legal fees to the ammo maker/seller means the Brady bunch has to pay for the defendants lawyer(s) and the court costs, right? The Brady's (whomever) are ALSO liable for their own lawyer's fees, right? SO, even if the lawyers were pro bono on behalf of the Brady folks, they are still on the hook for the rest of the costs, right? Yes, absolutely, if the Brady group stiffs their members who' were named as the actual plaintiff's, and forces them to pay the costs out of their own pockets, that is something we should definitely make the public aware of (providing it doesn't cross some privacy line).
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
July 2, 2015, 09:20 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Privacy be damned, these are the folks who print lists of gun owners and permittees for the general public to choose their target du jour from.
You can bet if the NRA had joined in such a suit, the Brady group would be in high dudgeon over the so-called gun lobby dropping their co-plaintiff in the taxable soup and demanding release of confidential agreements, if any. |
July 2, 2015, 09:26 PM | #17 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
I agree, they most certainly would, but do WE want to go there? Do we have the legal right? Not just what would be morally satisfying, to turn the tables on them, for once..
So, their right to privacy is important, to our side, even though our rights are not important to them. Always tempting to abandon the moral high ground in favor of the cheap shot, but seldom worth it in the long run. If we aren't breaking any laws getting, and publicizing the information about who pays what part of their legal costs, I say do it. If we are, breaking a law, not just the rules of decency, or good taste and fairness, then I say refrain.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
July 2, 2015, 10:53 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
Still, Brady is not a party to the litigation and is not liable for the fees unless they had an agreement with the Phillips beforehand. If so, the defendants still collect from the Phillips who then have to seek payment from Brady. Those sorts of arrangements used to be unlawful because it stirred up litigation but I think most jurisdictions allow it now (the practice is called champerty or maintenance). By unlawful, it may or may not have been criminal but the contracts were unenforceable and would result in dismissal of the litigation being funded by the non-party to the suit. |
|
July 5, 2015, 10:08 PM | #19 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
I would be surprised if they are hung out to dry.
Unless they care to complain about it publicly I don't see how it is any business of ours who pays the bills. $200,000 is of little consequence when you take in the bigger picture. Why wouldn't they pay it? |
July 6, 2015, 04:17 AM | #20 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 6, 2015, 08:01 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Someone like Bloomberg will step in a shore up their accounts sooner later, unless the prevailing feeling is that they are ineffective in which case maybe we'll get lucky and they'll just go away.
|
July 6, 2015, 11:55 AM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 2012
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 2,217
|
Quote:
__________________
Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it. Milton Freidman "If you find yourself in a fair fight,,, Your tactics suck"- Unknown |
|
July 6, 2015, 03:17 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
They will never go away. The principals in these organizations reorganize and re-fund themselves as new fronts whenever they mismanage or lose their funding sources.
They're suing gun makers with actions they know to be of no merit, solely for the purpose of making the manufacture of firearms in this country unprofitable. They're trying to put gun retailers out of business by buying a few shares of stock and trying to change their direction as shareholders. Try and buy a share of stock in Brady Campaign or any other such outfit. You can't. They are closely-held tyrannies built around the personal egos of a handful of principals and funded largely by only a few donors, unanswerable to anyone. They seek out and encourage litigation using grieving families of victims of violence, like any low-life ambulance chasing shyster. Why shouldn't we be concerned as to what their practices are? Exposing unethical business practices and distasteful use of victims by these people to the general public is something we should be looking for. |
July 6, 2015, 08:01 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
You do realize that the reason you can't "buy shares" of Brady campaign stocks is that they aren't a company, they're a non profit organization. There is no stock to buy :P .
NJ has it's version of the Brady bunch, Cease fire NJ. It has one guy, literally one guy! Who lives in PA!!! But he spends his time trying to get more laws in NJ instead of PA of all things. The talking heads interview the wack job whenever a gun story pops up and no else will comment. If you're wondering why I brought that up, I'm hoping that the Brady Bunch will eventually end up the same way, one guy with a blog no one reads. |
July 6, 2015, 09:27 PM | #25 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
ok, my point was the plaintiffs (Phillips) are on the hook for the judgment. Now, since they were acting for the Brady bunch (whether a legal fiction, or not), it would appear to me that the Brady group has a moral obligation to pony up the funds to either make the payment through the Phillips or to reimburse the Phillips after they do.
And I think that if they don't, their lack of faith should be known to the world. After all, if they willing stick their pawns with the full (or any) of the cost of losing, it speaks volumes to the honesty and credibility about everything. So, if they do the honorable thing, pay for the loss because they were the force behind the case all along, let them toot their own horn, if they choose to. But if they break faith with their chosen minions, that needs public exposure, for the sake of potential future pawns, if nothing else.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
|