Gun dealer and manufacturer settle in [D.C.] sniper lawsuit (Flashback)

Seattle Times ^ | Thursday, September 09, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M. | Maureen O'Hagan

[TSgt]

The families of eight D.C. sniper victims reached two settlements totaling $2.5 million yesterday with the dealer and manufacturer of the rifle used in the shooting spree that left Washington, D.C.-area residents afraid to leave their homes in the fall of 2002.

Lawyers for the families call the settlements "landmark."

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which has filed a number of gun suits, said this is the first time a gun manufacturer has agreed to pay a settlement to victims.

Bushmaster Firearms Inc. of Maine will pay $550,000, all of which is covered by its insurance policy. And Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, in Tacoma, will pay $2 million, the largest settlement of its kind by a gun dealer, the Brady Center said.

"This settlement sends a loud message to all gun manufacturers that they can't look the other way when their guns are being irresponsibly sold or secured at the retail level," said Jon Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center.

"The Brady Center lawsuit was intended to put Bushmaster out of business or make it change its business practices. Neither goal was accomplished," said Steve Fogg, who represented Bushmaster along with Kelly Corr.

[TSgt]

Bushmaster should have never settled and set a terrible precedent.

That said, the .223 in this case was legally purchased so perhaps the mother's estate will be sued?

Either way I informed my wife last night that we would be acquiring a few more firesticks in the near future.

[agrarianlady]

I definitely think the victims should be compensated from the mother’s estate. They will have heavy funeral and burial expenses to cover.

Why should the absent father get to keep the money?

[txnativegop]

I told my wife the same thing as well.

[Jewels1091]

So...when will the first lawsuit against car manufacturers come? They build cars that they know some will get in drunk and drink and kill....it’s coming!

[TSgt]

Exactly!

[gaijin]

Most people don’t realize the younger perp nearly escaped from police custody; alone in some makeshift holding cell, he climbed into the ceiling panels, through some ducts and nearly ESCAPED (they got him).

Police told the surviving ex-wife of the elder perp that in fact his motives had been about CUSTODY, not nuttiness or Islam stuff.

Two lesser-known aspects of the case.

[Mack the knife]

The end of the article revealed that the basis of the suit was that the 17yo perp shoplifted the rifle, and the store didn’t even know it was gone.

So ... the question is, should a store which sells rifles be held responsible for the damage resulting from a shoplifted rifle? I believe that is a legitimate subject for debate. Should a store which sells explosives be held responsible for the damage resulting from shoplifted explosives? One can argue that the store is responsible for providing security for dangerous items.

However, I don’t believe that the manufacturer should be held responsible for the damage resulting from a rifle or explosives shoplifted from a store that it supplied.