Brady Center Ordered to Pay FFLs’ $200,000+ Attorney’s Fees

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

I hope the Brady Bunch Center goes bankrupt.



Brady Center Ordered to Pay FFLs’ Attorney’s fees

NEWTOWN, Conn –-( “Those who ignite a fire should be responsible for the cost of suppressing it before it becomes a conflagration.”

With this rebuke, a district court has ordered the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to pay more than $200,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to several Internet-based FFLs that the gun control organization wrongly sought to hold liable for the tragic and criminal Aurora movie theater shootings.

In striking this blow to the Brady Center, the court chided the lawsuit as being nothing more than a political ruse and an opportunity for the Center to propagandize the public and stigmatize online retailers.

Lucky Gunner
Lucky Gunner

Clearly, the Brady Center had no real legal claim and solely sought to damage or destroy the legitimate business of Internet retailers and invalidate the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the state laws protecting them.

The underlying opinion has been appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, so we will continue to provide updates as the appeal proceeds.

And It Gets Better. . . Brady Center Loses Again in an Alaska Lawsuit

The Brady Center’s losses mounted this week after an Alaska jury found in favor of a former FFL retailer in the case of Estate of Kim v. Coxe. The wrongful death action, originally filed in 2008, alleged that the former retailer knowingly transferred a rifle to a vagrant after the man stole a rifle from Rayco Sales, leaving $200 on the counter, and then used that rifle two days later to commit a murder.

The Brady Center attorneys went to trial alleging theories of negligence and negligent entrustment, but the actions of the former retailer – including immediately telephoning police – were sufficient for the jury to find in favor of the defendant.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Court rules N.Y. shooting victim can sue gun maker, distributor

Leave a comment


This is from Yahoo News.

This is a BS ruling from the New York State Appeals Court.

The gun manufacturer and distributor are not responsible for the shooting.

James Bostic fraudulently bought the gun as he was a felon.

Why didn’t the NICS check flag him as a felon?

The FBI/NICS is to blame for James Bostic being able to buy the guns.

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) – A Buffalo man who was shot nearly a decade ago can sue the manufacturer, the distributor and the dealer of the semi-automatic pistol used to shoot him, a New York state appeals court ruled on Friday.

Attorneys for Daniel Williams, who was shot in 2003 when he was in high school, argued that Ohio-based manufacturer Beemiller and the distributor, MKS Supply, violated federal law by knowingly supplying guns to irresponsible dealers.

The defendants said they cannot be sued because of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability for harm caused by the criminal misuse of their non-defective products.

A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on Friday reversed a 2011 ruling that threw out the case against the defendants – Beemiller, MKS Supply and gun dealer Charles Brown, who sold the guns to James Bostic, a Buffalo resident accused of running a trafficking scheme that funneled guns into the black market in New York.

The decision reinstates the case.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is representing Williams, claims Bostic is a convicted felon and is barred from purchasing guns, according to the ruling.

The center said Bostic traveled to Ohio, which does not require a license to buy a gun, to procure a large numbers of handguns, including the pistol used to shoot Williams, the ruling said.

“Although the complaint does not specify the statutes allegedly violated (by the defendants), it sufficiently alleges facts supporting a finding that defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws,” Justice Erin Peradotto wrote for the court.

Jeffrey Malsch, a lawyer for MKS, said he is reviewing the decision.

“We believe (the lower court’s ruling) was a courageous and legally correct decision, but the Fourth Department was unwilling to follow his well reasoned opinion,” he said. “Whether we appeal or not, we are confident that ultimately the facts will contradict the baseless allegations in the complaint and the case will be dismissed.”

Attorneys for Williams and the remaining defendants did not immediately return requests for comment.




%d bloggers like this: