Replies

Please note where this came from (Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence), and who wrote the article.

(Amy Stilwell of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence)

Is money the real issue, or something else?

Comments?

By the way, Ann Coulter is coming on Hard Ball again.

On January 12, 2001, Shuntez Everett shot Detective Lemongello and Officer McGuire with a 9-mm semiautomatic Ruger handgun, after being approached during undercover surveillance of a gas station that had been robbed repeatedly. Both officers survived but suffered serious debilitating injuries. Everett was killed during the shootings.

Sounds to me like these two cops should be sued by the taxpayers for negligence in the performance of their duty. With the two of them working undercover, Shuntez should not have been allowed to shoot them. Their failure to do their duty costs the taxpayer, and those costs should be recovered from the officers.

Suing the gun manufacturer? I guess if they were stabbed, then they would sue the knife manufacturer? If they were hit with a bat, would they sue the bat manufacturer? If they get run over, do they sue the car manufacturer?

I am so sick of these dickheads who are willing to do anything to exploit a situation to get rich, regardless of the consequences. I normally have respect for police, soldiers, and firefighters. In this case, I wish that thug had been a better shooter, or fired more rounds. These two cops are human refuse. F them.

Detective David Lemongello and Officer Kenneth McGuire, please kill yourselves. You suck. F you.

The suit charges gun dealer Will's with negligence for consummating a large-volume straw sale of guns obviously headed for the illegal market. The suit further charges gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger with negligence for its failure to enforce a code of conduct that would require its dealers to spot and prevent straw sales and that would prevent its dealers from engaging in large-volume sales.

Well, now... HCI (or whatever the f*** they call themselves these days) are up to their usual tricks. Now, why am I not surprized?

Someone please tell me, exactly HOW was this "obviously" a "straw sale" of a high volume of guns "headed for the illegal market"??? The gun dealer complied with extant laws governing gun sales. They even went further, contacting the BATF when they grew concerned. If the dealer had refused sale after complying with federal and state laws, the purchaser might have turned around and sued them for denial of civil rights.

Someone please now tell me exactly WHY Sturm Ruger was supposed to "enforce" (without legal authority to do so) a "code of conduct" (not required by extant laws) upon gun dealers which would "require" its dealers to "spot and prevent straw sales" (how are dealers supposed to know what is a straw-sale?) and that would "prevent" its dealers from engaging in "large-volume sales" (and, thus, illegally interfering with the ability of these dealers to make an honest profit)?

Let me get this straight: HCI(whatever) is suing Ruger et alia not only despite the fact that the named defendants did not violate any extant laws, but indeed BECAUSE they did not?!?

Does anyone know what kind of crack they are smoking over there in gun-grabber HQ???