Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 01/17/2003 6:45:47 AM PST by choosetheright
A lawsuit filed against the Maine company that made the rifle used in last fall's sniper shootings poses intriguing legal questions, experts say.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Washington state by lawyers representing relatives of the snipers' victims, alleges that Windham-based Bushmaster Firearms Inc. showed gross negligence that caused injuries and death.
The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, also names the Tacoma, Wash., gun dealer that either sold or lost the rifle, as well as the sniper suspects, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo. Muhammad and Malvo are accused of killing 13 people and wounding five others in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.
"This is a very basic negligence case," said Daniel Vice, a lawyer at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C., representing the plaintiffs. "Everyone, including those who make products made to kill, have to act responsibly in conducting their business."
The suit contends Bushmaster acted irresponsibly by selling its rifles to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma despite prior government audits that showed the store could not account for hundreds of guns.
Allen Faraday, vice president of administration for Bushmaster, said Thursday the company did nothing wrong. He said the high-powered Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle was sold legally to a federally licensed firearms dealer.
"We absolutely do not feel this lawsuit is legitimate," Faraday said. "It's unfortunate that there are very well-financed anti-gun groups out there that would take advantage of a heinous crime like this to take guns away from law-abiding citizens."
In recent years, several lawsuits have been filed, some successfully, seeking to hold gun dealers and manufacturers responsible for crimes committed by gun owners.
In November, a jury in Florida awarded $1.2 million to the widow of a schoolteacher killed by a student. The case against Valor Corp., the distributor of the handgun used in the shooting, marked the first time a gun dealer was found liable for distributing so-called "junk guns" without safety features.
Still, persuading a jury to hold dealers and manufacturers of firearms accountable for the conduct of their owners can be tricky.
"They'll argue that they are no more responsible for how a gun is used than General Motors is responsible for an accident caused by a person driving one of its cars," said John Paterson, a Portland trial lawyer who does product-liability work. "And, they'll say, it's impossible as a practical matter for us to police every retailer who chooses to sell our products."
According to the lawsuit filed Thursday, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply received the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle on July 2, 2002, less than three months before the gun was used in the first sniper shooting in Maryland.
It's still not clear how Muhammad and Malvo, who were both legally prohibited from buying guns, obtained the Bushmaster rifle, which is a civilian version of the military's M-16 assault rifle.
"It moved incredibly fast from Bull's Eye to the hands of the snipers," said Vice, the lawyer at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "There had to be some grossly negligent conduct."
Faraday said Bushmaster was unaware that previous audits of the Tacoma gun dealer's records, done by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, detected more than 200 missing guns. He called Bull's Eye Shooting Supply - which is still federally licensed to sell guns - a "good customer" to whom Bushmaster will continue to sell. The company sells its guns to about 60 licensed dealers around the country.
Gun enthusiasts in Maine dismissed the suit against Bushmaster as exploitative.
"The problem's not the gun, but man's evilness of heart. That's what causes so much of these problems," said George Fogg of North Yarmouth, a longtime member of the National Rifle Association. "I've pounded my thumb something awful, but I didn't blame the darn hammer."
But William Harwood, president of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence, says gunmakers should not be insulated from lawsuits resulting from such shootings. And he says legislation pending in Congress that would grant gun manufacturers and sellers immunity from virtually all civil lawsuits is "a terrible idea."
"No one likes to be sued, but it's the way in our society we hold people accountable," Harwood said. "If this weapon was not properly accounted for, it's fair to ask a judge and jury whether that constitutes negligence."
The car is obviously TOO BIG for our own good. Ban it like the .50 cal rifles.Aren't THEY too big?
10-4. I can't imagine Bushmaster wants to take the position that a dealer who can't keep track of its own inventory is a "good customer." That comment is surprising, but it also may have been "interpreted" by the reporter. The article has an anti-gun slant to it IMO.
10-4. I can't imagine Bushmaster wants to take the position that a dealer who can't keep track of its own inventory is a "good customer." That comment is surprising, but it also may have been "interpreted" by the reporter. The article has an anti-gun slant to it IMO.
This assumes that Bushmaster KNEW before the sale that the dealer was having this problem. As far as I remember, this tidbit of info didn't come out until after the BATF had audited this dealer in conjunction with the sniper attacks.
Maybe I'm misremembering... can anyone provide a link to a story that proves BM knew beforehand?
ATF is at fault...why did they not yank this guy's license when they found he could not account for weapons in his possession?
I know that it is possible to order a firearm from Bushmaster and have it delivered to a specific FFL, but does anyone know if Bushmaster generally sells to wholesalers which in turn take orders from retail dealers?
Just curious if the company is one step removed from the dealer, as is often the case. Smaller manufacturers usually sell directly to gun dealers, but Bushmaster is not a small company anymore.
More specifically, did *that* rifle come directly from Bushmaster to the dealer, or did it take a more circuitous route? Inquiring minds, and all that.
Are we changing the subject to varmint rifles? : )
Perhaps you'd like for some independent agency to keep track of gun sales?
BATF, for example?
As I read their statement Bushmaster is saying it still would sell to this specific dealer. That seems to me isn't a good idea to say - or do, for that matter.
Well yes they might have wanted to sue. But I doubt that Brady Campaign would be helping if instead of an "assault rifle", it was a genuine "sniper rifle", (say a scope-sighted, bolt-action Remington .30-06)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.