Lucky Gunner Lawsuit Failures

[Saintsfan6]

We have been getting a lot of questions about our lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, the online company that sold ammunition to the man who murdered our daughter Jessica along with 11 others in an Aurora, Colorado, theater. Especially after the Rachel Maddow Show covered us twice, people ask us about the judge's order that we pay Lucky Gunner's attorneys' fees, since our lawsuit was unsuccessful.

We brought our lawsuit because we thought it was outrageous that companies could sell a dangerous man an arsenal without getting any information about him, and without making any effort to see if he was a dangerous killer -- which he was. When the killer had left a voicemail with a shooting range, the range operator knew that he was bad news and shouldn't be given access to guns. But these companies set up their business so people just like this killer can arm themselves at the click of a mouse. We wanted to change that. And we still do.

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.

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. If you couple the PLCAA law with Colorado's law HB 000-208, (which says in essence: If you bring a civil case against a gun or ammunition seller and the case is dismissed then the plaintiff must pay all the defendant's costs), you have an impenetrable barrier to using the judicial system to effect change in gun legislation in Colorado.

Everyone else in society has a duty to use reasonable care to not injure others -- except gun and ammunition sellers.

To make matters worse, the judge ordered that we pay $203,000. This is an outrageous amount, especially given that this case was decided after one single motion! Lucky Gunner has said that it is going to donate all these fees to "gun rights" groups. The thought is disgusting to us that Lucky Gunner does not even plan to use this money to pay for their attorney's fees.

Lucky Gunner wants to use blood money to fund the NRA and like-minded groups. See for yourself. Check out Lucky Gunner's self-serving description of our case then click on "Head Here" (the green words at the end of Lucky Gunner's last sentence) to find out how the money is to be distributed.

The law says we are responsible for these fees, which we recognize. We do not have the money to pay this amount. The Judge insinuated in his order that Brady should pay since he said they were the instigators. If this was a ploy designed to give the appearance that Brady was responsible and turn us against each other, it did not work.

Brady is still fighting for us pro bono and we see no evidence that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will not help us raise funds if and when that time comes.

We believe that the judge's decision was wrong, and that it is unconstitutional to financially punish people for bringing a lawsuit, especially a public interest case that did not seek a dime. But rather than risk possibly being ordered to pay even more fees, we are changing our focus from going after these laws in the judicial branch (we have dropped our appeal) to getting them overturned on the legislative level.

We have brought attorney Dan Wartell with the law firm Jones & Keller into our team who is also helping us.

We hope that we are spearheading a movement to expose these egregious and unconstitutional laws for what they really are. They are an attack on our civil liberties. With these laws in place ordinary citizens are effectively barred by the exorbitant cost from bringing any civil action against sellers of firearms and ammunition.

It is un-American and outrageous that these special laws can deny us our day in court simply because we were victimized by the gun industry. Our lawsuit was not frivolous. Our Jessi was shot multiple times with high-velocity, armor-piercing bullets that were designed by our military to inflict maximum damage on enemy combatants.

One of the six, steel-jacketed bullets that killed her slammed through a theater seat, entered her left eye and left a five-inch hole in her face as it blew her brains out on to the theater floor. The other five specially designed bullets tumbled when they tore through her flesh and did devastating damage to both legs, arms and intestines.

Those bullets were six of 4,000 that Lucky Gunner sold to a mass murderer in one sale without even checking his driver's license.

Why is there a law that says you cannot sue an ammunitions dealer that allowed 4,000 rounds of armor-piercing bullets into the wrong hands?

How else are we as citizens going to get them to stop doing that?

No other industry has this immunity.

The horrific and public execution of our daughter Jessi and 11 other beautiful young lives has given us a brief window of opportunity to bring awareness to the number one public health crisis facing this nation today which is rampant gun violence. It is unfathomable to me that the billion dollar gun lobby can intimidate our Congress and some state legislatures into passing laws that give the gun industry immunity against irresponsible acts that enables them to arm, and profit from, domestic terrorists, and other killers.

It is abhorrent to us as the parents of a child who has been killed by a person with outwardly obvious mental issues who was able to easily access a one hundred round magazine and 4,000 rounds of armor-piercing bullets online without a valid ID.

Who is our last line of defense that makes that conscious decision to not ask for ID before selling large orders of lethal, military-grade armament? Online sellers, knowing they are shielded by immunity laws, refuse to put into place even minimal safeguards that would save lives. That is abhorrent to us.

One of the ways that we can level the playing field is to create precedents in our court rooms that make gun and ammunition dealers pay a price for conduct that contributes to gun violence. Another way is to lobby our state and federal legislators to repeal these laws. That is our objective.

We are calling on the citizens of this country and the gun violence prevention community to stand ready to help us get in the face of state and national legislators. Join us in helping to get the word out to the American citizens who are not aware of how these laws take away the rights of victims of gun violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonni...suit_b_8197804.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

So many failures in this article. Title should be "We filed frivolous and are now upset we owe money!"

 

[ddeacon1]

I am happy that the case was lost. If it had won, what would have been next?

 

[Saintsfan6]

The thing that is most absurd about the article IMO (other than the flat out misinformation/lies) is that they suggest a drivers license check would have made a difference in this situation. He was not a criminal before ordering the ammo, therefore his DL would have cleared. The AP argument is nonsense, just an antigun ploy. The part about a round penetrating a theater seat before striking the victim had nothing to do with what ammo the shooter was using, he could have been using standard .223 ammo and it wouldn't have made a difference.

Using phrases like "blood money" is obviously a propaganda tool for the leftist gun grabbers.

"But these companies set up their business so people just like this killer can arm themselves at the click of a mouse. We wanted to change that. And we still do." What this statement suggests to me is that they believe all online ammo sales should be restricted or illegal, and what they would probably propose would be going through a background check anytime you want to purchase more than a box of ammo (maybe any ammo at all) from a store.

 

[Brawny]

I am sorry for the devastating events at this theater and other mass shootings. My heart goes out to the families and I would probably be seeking some way to prevent this from happening again but had he only bought 400 rounds the result would have been the same.
I don't have a problem though with pinging large quantities of ammunition bought but as noted nothing shows up unless the buyer has a previous record.

 

[GunRelated]

Something about the way they go into such detail about their own daughters death just to insinuate that this was/has to be anyone else's fault but the shooter is just a little disturbing. Also, I actually laughed a little when I read the part about them being disgusted as to how lucky gunner plans to spend that money instead of the attorney costs.... IT'S THEIR F'ING MONEY

 

[Saintsfan6]

It was absolutely a terrible tragedy and I feel for the family of those killed or injured, but they will not accept the fault being the shooter's alone. I feel like someone could say "my daughter was hit and killed by an insane person driving an F250 that intentionally crossed the center line, lets sue Ford for selling such a large dangerous vehicle to someone that might use it to kill someone!"

 

[Barry J]

I think all lawsuits should be that way. If you bring a bull **** lawsuit, you should have to pay all fees when it is thrown out. Most of the time it costs more to defend yourself that to pay a settlement. Those anti gun groups would get those pro bono lawyers to sue gun shops and run them out of business defending themselves.

 

[Vermiform]

I don't have a problem though with pinging large quantities of ammunition bought but as noted nothing shows up unless the buyer has a previous record.

I have a problem with it. It's none of .gov's business how much ammo anyone buys. Unregulated ammo sales are not a problem and never will be.

 

[Brawny]

I have a problem with it. It's none of .gov's business how much ammo anyone buys. Unregulated ammo sales are not a problem and never will be.

That's cool, I'm not here to argue. Just giving my opinion. I'm not going to lose sleep.either way. As I stated, had he only bought 400 rounds the result would be no different. He still would be a low life murdering bastard whose name does not even deserve to be remembered.

 

[JBgleason]

The irony in this piece is that they state that after this failure they are now going to give up on the judicial branch and try to seek change from the legislative branch. Little civics lesson here folks. THAT is how our system is supposed to work and this never should have been pursued in the Judicial Branch. Our system worked EXACTLY RIGHT this time around. Legislative Branch writes and modifies laws. The Judicial Branches sole responsibility with regards to the language of legislation is to determine if it is constitutional or not. Way too many people (and judges for that matter) don't understand that. Judges have never been tasked with modifying existing law.

 

[ddeacon1]

I think all lawsuits should be that way. If you bring a bull **** lawsuit, you should have to pay all fees when it is thrown out. Most of the time it costs more to defend yourself that to pay a settlement. Those anti gun groups would get those pro bono lawyers to sue gun shops and run them out of business defending themselves.

I would love for that to happen here in Louisiana. A large number of people in the NOLA area are looking at those as a pay check.

 

[Talon65]

While my heart goes out to the families if it hadn't been a gun free zone perhaps one or more of the combat veterans in attendance that night instead of covering their loved ones bodies with their own would have drawn a pistol and put this waste of breath out of everyones misery, but then again this is the sort of anti gun picture painting you will get from sources like the huffington post.

 

[JadeRaven]

Great result here. People like this, no matter how tragic their story or deep their loss, should not be able to harass law abiding citizens and companies via the judicial system.

Brady campaign better pony up for these people that they severely misled.