Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Parents of Sandy Hook victims planning lawsuit against gunmaker Bushmaster [View all]VScott
(774 posts)238. Once bitten...
twice shy.
With that, it wouldn't surprise me if they are taking this suit more seriously than the many posters here who are dismissing it.
I trust that they learned to work more closely with their insurance company for one thing.
The good news is that despite all their chest pounding and bloviating, the Brady Campaign and 2nd amendment
foes failed once again to break or bankrupt a decent and legitimate firearms manufacturer.
Bushmaster Responds to Brady Groups False Claim of Victory
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est
Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.
The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.
The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance companys position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.
We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!
Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Groups attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est
Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.
The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.
The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance companys position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.
We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!
Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Groups attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.
Press Release:
September 8th, 2004 5:54PM est
Windham, Maine -- Bushmaster Firearms is pleased to announce a conclusion to the DC sniper case brought by the victims families and the Brady organization. The balance of the insurance policy not spent on legal fees, approximately $550,000, will go to the victims families for their grief.
Bushmaster reaffirms its commitment to BATF requirements and National Shooting Sports Foundations (NSSF) goals.
Bushmaster supports that FFL Dealers and Distributors who sell its products follow the recommendations of the BATF newsletters and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) publication Dont Lie for the Other Guy program and their other safety literature.
Bushmaster supports the standards set forth by the BATF in their requirements to be a licensed FFL holder.
Richard E. Dyke
Chairman
Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.
Windham, Maine
September 8th, 2004 5:54PM est
Windham, Maine -- Bushmaster Firearms is pleased to announce a conclusion to the DC sniper case brought by the victims families and the Brady organization. The balance of the insurance policy not spent on legal fees, approximately $550,000, will go to the victims families for their grief.
Bushmaster reaffirms its commitment to BATF requirements and National Shooting Sports Foundations (NSSF) goals.
Bushmaster supports that FFL Dealers and Distributors who sell its products follow the recommendations of the BATF newsletters and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) publication Dont Lie for the Other Guy program and their other safety literature.
Bushmaster supports the standards set forth by the BATF in their requirements to be a licensed FFL holder.
Richard E. Dyke
Chairman
Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.
Windham, Maine
https://web.archive.org/web/20040911001123/http://www.bushmaster.com/
Bushmaster Firearms of Windham, Maine, agreed to pay $550,000 to eight plaintiffs. Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, where the snipers' Bushmaster rifle came from, agreed to pay $2 million.
Kelly Corr, the attorney representing Bushmaster, said the company made ''no admission of liability whatsoever."
He said Bushmaster and its insurance company, which will pay the $550,000, decided to settle rather than continuing to run up legal fees in court. Corr said the settlement will not change the way Bushmaster conducts business.
''Bushmaster believes it is a responsible manufacturer," he said.
As part of the settlement, though, Bushmaster agreed to educate its dealers on gun safety.
Kelly Corr, the attorney representing Bushmaster, said the company made ''no admission of liability whatsoever."
He said Bushmaster and its insurance company, which will pay the $550,000, decided to settle rather than continuing to run up legal fees in court. Corr said the settlement will not change the way Bushmaster conducts business.
''Bushmaster believes it is a responsible manufacturer," he said.
As part of the settlement, though, Bushmaster agreed to educate its dealers on gun safety.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/09/10/gun_maker_and_dealer_settle_in_dc_sniper_shootings_lawsuit/
My money is on Bushmaster prevailing. I wish them well, and extend them the support and backing they deserve
against this aberration of a lawsuit.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
380 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Parents of Sandy Hook victims planning lawsuit against gunmaker Bushmaster [View all]
azurnoir
Dec 2014
OP
Perhaps they should do something beneficial rather than something futile
Freddie Stubbs
Dec 2014
#308
No more and less than "of course the firearm had no relevance... the shooter did it with his bare ha
LanternWaste
Dec 2014
#296
A poll on an anonymous, admittedly left-leaning, expressly Democratic internet forum,
branford
Dec 2014
#323
In a sane world they would have been sued and bankrupted a long time ago...
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#52
The gun was connecticut ban compliant. What negligence would you levy at them?
X_Digger
Dec 2014
#127
You would state a lie? The primary use of firearms is to collect dust in a gun cabinet..
X_Digger
Dec 2014
#132
Sandy Hook topics always brings out the NRA with their false analogies. Knives & pointy sticks have
TeamPooka
Dec 2014
#334
So the actual death toll is irrelevant? The only thing that matters is what it was designed to do?
hack89
Dec 2014
#343
I did not say that, but I like how you try to make a straw man argument. So pathetic. nt
TeamPooka
Dec 2014
#350
I merely pointed out knives have non-lethal uses. You have termed that "dismissing them as murder
TeamPooka
Dec 2014
#352
You gave knife manufacturers a pass in regards to the criminal use of their products
hack89
Dec 2014
#353
Why is it that the pro gun control crowd always, inevitably, fall back on the penis reference?
GGJohn
Dec 2014
#363
Oh how I wish there was an actual hell, there would be an entire wing for them
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#54
I understand their wanting to make a point, but they'll lose very early in the game. n/t
ColesCountyDem
Dec 2014
#12
I can assure you this law firm is not to be under estimated..they're well respected here in
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#20
The firm has not stated how they're liable and it is completely up to the families
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#27
Bet any way you like. The firm has not stated in what capacity Bushmaster is liable, yet.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#64
uh huh..because you're an attorney and know that wiki has convinced you..evidently, not
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#117
You can't comprehend that you're uninformed due to the fact that the firm has not
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#119
Like I said, and will repeat once more...they have not stated their reasoning for liability claims.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#133
Couldnt agree more...tell it and tell it loud and often, I say...Thank you, buddhagirl
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#56
Military-styled firearms are treated by way too many as elaborate, lethal toys.
Paladin
Dec 2014
#112
Do you support banning any type of gun that could used in a Sandy Hook type shooting?
hack89
Dec 2014
#180
Shaky, at best, given the absurd way our laws protect these manufacturers of death.
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#58
The bars are more like gun dealers - they have direct contact with the purchaser
hack89
Dec 2014
#76
If that was the case you would think there would be a huge spike in deaths due to rifles
hack89
Dec 2014
#88
Most people consider "spike" to mean "sharply increase" in this context
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2014
#118
Handguns do concern me, but not your gun buddies. They keep adding to their collection and strappin
Hoyt
Dec 2014
#310
I don't own a gun. Your remote viewing abilities are on a par with your cosmology
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2014
#116
You know what excites my baser instincts far more than any of my thirty-nine firearms?
sir pball
Dec 2014
#137
That's a gun. That does nothing for me. I said that, pretty clearly. Now, where's the bike?!
sir pball
Dec 2014
#149
Nah, it's just a collection. Most of them are nice and old fashioned, I just liked them.
sir pball
Dec 2014
#152
God, I remember when NHRA used to allow us to stand right there on the side of the track
GGJohn
Dec 2014
#154
There are actually specific laws and treaties that deal with airline liability
branford
Dec 2014
#286
A hint at where they may be going with this lawsuit, from Koskoff in 2013:
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#135
Yea, I read your opinion and the other pro gun rights advocates in this thread.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#140
You're not, eh? Interesting take you have. Yes, I noticed how often you have mentioned
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#143
How does that address the Op-Ed he wrote? What makes you think he is not aware of the law?
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#144
Blood sucking lawyers and you support laws designed to protect the arms manufacturer.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#158
The automobile industry is not protected that way, that is absurd to even suggest.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#165
I think you're lost as to what the Op-Ed Koskoff wrote is suggesting...they are not going after the
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#169
Again, Koskoff admits no such thing..that is the opinion of the blog host, who acknowledges
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#173
You're certainly free to root for the Remington Outdoor Company..no law against that. n/t
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#177
Blame the Brady family..how nice of you. You're part of the problem, not the Bradys.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#191
Wish they'd sue Alex Jones for instigating harassment of victims' families
Adenoid_Hynkel
Dec 2014
#138
You're forgetting that the DC Sniper killings took place in 2002, before the passage of
GGJohn
Dec 2014
#208
A USA gun control extremist is just a normal person in most of the civilized world
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#302
Rude LOL oh my god, the people who are against guns slaughtering people are the rude
NoJusticeNoPeace
Dec 2014
#311
Are you under the impression that being "against guns slaughtering people" makes one incapable...
beevul
Dec 2014
#321
snip* No other industry in the country benefits from such special legal protection.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#236
No industry should be afforded such protection under the law..they have gained
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#239
Where did I say they were negligent? In regards to what..their lack of safety measures?
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#241
You imagine they would allow themselves to be sued into oblivion? You can't be serious.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#250
I don't know that to be an accurate account of their end goal. Reagrdless, the gun lobby
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#258
You can read, correct? So don't quote me and then get it wrong. Those are your words, not mine.
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#249
You're not being asked to censor yourself..you are being asked to be accurate...not hard.n/t
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#254
You're serious? ok..it means, I would appreciate you not misquoting me. n/t
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#257
Do you guys freak out over every single mention that your control of the Congress
Jefferson23
Dec 2014
#260
The state of Connecticut, through their AWB, said the number of rounds fired was legal
hack89
Dec 2014
#294
With the challenges to the NY & CT gun controls having been heard by the 2nd Circuit of Appeals
Lurks Often
Dec 2014
#312
Case was filed in state court with non-diverse instate necessary party defendants
Gothmog
Dec 2014
#367
CT's Assault weapons standards has more to do with the design and features of the weapon,
GGJohn
Dec 2014
#325
If the area is a lawful gun range, I assume the open carry would be perfectly legal
branford
Dec 2014
#364
I do not believe that the lack of reference to the PLCAA is a defect in the complaint,
branford
Dec 2014
#328
If negligent entrustment cases are exempted from PLCAA then why would pleading mention this?
Gothmog
Dec 2014
#368