Rachel Maddow - Online weapon sales loophole targeted by Aurora victim's parents

[stone space]

Last edited Fri Jul 31, 2015, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Published on Jul 31, 2015


July 30, 2015
Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter was killed in the shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, talk with Rachel Maddow about challenging the legality of online weapons and ammunition sales like the ones that supplied their daughter's killer.

[DonP]

1. You could contribute to help cover the court costs of these two Brady employees

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172172192

[Puha Ekapi]

2. +1

n/t

[Lurks Often]

3. The legality of online firearms sales is quite clear

If the firearm is sold online by a FFL and/or crosses state lines, Federal law requires a background check.

If the firearm is sold between 2 individuals residing in the SAME state, then the applicable state law applies.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. "Weapons" sales...

...excluding firearms across state lines AFAIK don't have any general federal restrictions.

Intrastate sales between non-FFL entities are the domain of the state, as you said.

[Lurks Often]

5. Thanks, in retrospect, my response was vaguer then I would have liked

especially with the OP's tendency to twist things around

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. From watching the video...

...it isn't plain that the items sold online did not include firearms.

I find it unsettling, annoying and typical of the control minded that this interview was presented to represent the efforts of the parents to change laws about these activities but that no where were any actual details of what laws or how those laws should be changed was presented.

The parents claimed the suit was about changing the laws but AFAIK a civil suit can never have the effect of changing a law. At one point Mr Phillips says that they asked the companies to consider changing their practices to "at least making some attempt to find out who they're selling this armament to". Since the items in question were delivered to, received and used by Holmes, I believe that the retailers knew "who" they were selling to.

Mr Phillips also said that bullets used in the shooting penetrated theater seats and were armor-piercing. I am aware of non-armor-piercing rounds that would, depending on range, penetrate at least a few theater type seats and remain lethal after that. Since the sale of armor-piercing ammo is restricted to military, law-enforcement and government agencies if these were actually armor-piercing I expect the sellers to be charged criminally. The fact that they're not tells me 2 things. First, the sellers didn't break the law and are protected under the PLCAA. Second, these nice folks having gone through all that they have, were lied to by those that convinced them to sue either directly or by omission. I can tell this because they seem to have no understanding of what is and is not armor-piercing ammo.

It's really sad that they brought this suit. It's terrible that they lost their daughter. The fact remains the manufactures and sellers involved are neither civilly nor criminally responsible.

[Lurks Often]

15. I didn't even have to watch the video to know it would be full of dishonesty

and I also have very little doubt that the parents were carefully coached to make sure their answers included as many gun control buzzwords as possible.

[beevul]

6. "When you brought this lawsuit..." Thanks for this.

"When you brought this lawsuit, against these online retailers that sold the equipment that was literally used to kill your daughter and to kill all those other people, did you know that it was a possibility that not only would the lawsuit be dismissed, but that you would be held accountable for the legal fees of these retailers?

Parents: Yes.

You decided to do it anyway?

Parents: Of course.


They knew what they were in for.

Parents: "We've been accused of standing on our daughters grave for our own agenda, and the answer to that is yes, we are."

Interestingly, nobody in that video thought to disclose the relationship of the parents to the brady campaign.

I wonder why.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Following the money generally leads to the truth

The truth isn't always pretty.

[branford]

8. The concerted bad-faith lawsuits attempting to bankrupt the firearm industry

and institute de facto gun bans by groups like Brady and their allies is the very reason why laws like the PLCAA and state equivalents were passed.

Although the Phillips' loss was tragic, they not only knew the relevant law and risks of litigation, but they were intimately involved as activists for Brady in supporting strategies to ban firearms outside the designate constitutional and legislative processes before the loss of their daughter. I, for one, will not succumb to emotional blackmail, and the scathing decisions by the court concerning the transparent political advocacy and lack of merit of the lawsuit speaks volumes of why no one else should either.

Brady sponsored, supported and openly marketed the lawsuit for political purposes, and they (or some of their allied billionaires and rich celebrities) should pay the fees. If they do not, it is a sad testament to their own craven, duplicitous and exploitative nature.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I feel the orgs behind the lawsuits saw this as a "can't lose"

Option 1:
Get any kind of win in court and it's victory. Advertising like that attention is priceless.


Option 2:
Lose big in court (the way they did) and have the plaintiffs hit with costs and burdens of the defense. Proceed to exploit how wrong that is and get an ocean of sympathy and hanky-wringing support.


Is there anywhere a pro-control group anywhere that is honest?

[branford]

12. I believe option 2 is more aspirational than practical.

Firearms are a battle in the culture wars, and partisan line have been drawn long ago.

The people who are watching the interviews on Rachel Maddow or complaining about the "injustice" of the fee award already likely support strict gun control (of course, there are some exception). Similarly, those who support the PLCAA and related laws already strongly support gun rights and the defendants.

At most, this will cause a small and fleeting fund raising bump for both the pro and ant-gun camps. However, if Brady really leaves the Phillips to truly suffer the financial consequences of the fee award, it will ultimately do more harm to their overall credibility and trustworthiness in the long term, including with people now unwilling to takes risks for them in more credible lawsuits. More importantly, this lawsuit (and others in the pipeline such as the Sandy Hook families' against Bushmaster) have not really created any groundswell of political capital to actually change the firearm industry immunity laws.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. I'm a bit more cynical

I believe the control orgs behind this fiasco have engaged here in justifying their existence. Yes there will be contributions (a mix of emotional grass roots level and rich 1%ers) that are all likely true believers. I feel that what the Phillips' receive in support from Brady, etc. will depend on the contributions raised (less, of course, a percentage to finance the continued operation of the org.)

[Duckhunter935]

14. I see it that way also

They sued after being informed the would likely fail. Now they are out there with crocodile tears. I truly feel sort for their loss but there are ways to actually change laws and that is not via civil lawsuits.

[ileus]

10. I suppose they've bought into the "no background" check lies???

[the band leader]

16. What firearm was purchased online and from whom was it purchased?

[rladdi]

18. Just think of what the people of Colorado think about the victims families. They want the

families to pay the provided of the weapons and ammunition from online. The NRA has bought out the politicians of CO. The NRA is the real ISIS in this nation. When will the people wake up to what the NRA is doing to the USA? They want total destruction. The NRA is made of up radical executives and paid members.

[Eleanors38]

20. Maybe the big majority of Americans don't see things your way.

[the band leader]

22. What weapons were purchased on line and from whom were they purchased?

[Eleanors38]

19. In my humble and oh so respectful opinion, there is a redolent hide somewhere.

No names of ANY DU members, no use of now-censored language &quot weaponry)phobe," no recommendations on auto maintenance.

Be VEWY, VEWY careful. Again.

Oh, and the parents seem to have been taken in by some gun-control group. But that is a respectful opinion, and certainly germane to the discussion as per TOS.

[Duckhunter935]

21. I saw the hides

That are happening again. Yes, I agree we must be very careful as the alert stalking is back.

[virginia mountainman]

23. Don't expect any replies from the OP ....

He is tied up for a while with other engagements..

[Lurks Often]

24. He was back for what, all of a week, before getting another timeout?

[virginia mountainman]

25. Some people cannot control themselves, or their emotions..

Unfortunately they also tend to project their very real, demonstrated lack of control, onto other people. I have delt with this first hand many times.

They literally believe that since THEY, cannot control themselves, then you obviously cannot neither.

[DonP]

26. Meh! He'll be back again - this time as an imaginary history teacher that won't allow gunz in class

But "Flagged For Review" in less than a week?

You really have to work at it to piss that many people off in so many threads so fast.

[blueridge3210]

27. I don't know if it is a lack of control

or a narcissistic desire to see himself as a victim that leads him to make such over-the-top statements that invite alerts and time-outs.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Might be back next week

But for how long, only the shadow knows........

[DonP]

29. Narcissistic is the right word

I think he (and many of his ilk) see themselves as the "smartest people in the room", morally superior to anyone that disagrees with them and they don't need to bother with the "fools/evil/heartless/bloodlust types" like us that disagree with them.

His creation of an imaginary calculus classroom and a professorship for himself is pretty obvious evidence.

The recent thread that discussed "compromise" was a prime example.

They really can't grasp the idea of giving up anything to get a "common sense" compromise. It's all about them getting everything they want using any means available.

A compromise in their mind is getting some now, more a little later, then everything they want sooner rather than later.

I've come to believe there is no reasoning or point in discussion with most of them.

Just ignore their ineffective and irrelevant whining and keep moving ahead. The falling violent crime rate is the only affirmation I need that they are wrong and we are right on this issue.