What do you guys think of this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131830,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5948566/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/09/sniper.families.lawsuit.ap/index.html
All three articles are essentially the same. Notice how the lawyer for the Brady Center managed to tie in the "assault weapon" angle.
I'm strongly opposed to any kind of settlement in this area, as it creates a precedent that the manufacturer is responsible for the private use of the item, whether it's guns or oreo cookies. Unfortunately, the gun seller in this case seems to have had, at best, some shady dealings, and that makes all the parties vulnerable to litigation. None the less, a bad shake all around. Notice that they're also suing the snipers, but don't expect that aspect of the case to even reach resolution, much less judgement.
-Rob
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131830,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5948566/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/09/sniper.families.lawsuit.ap/index.html
All three articles are essentially the same. Notice how the lawyer for the Brady Center managed to tie in the "assault weapon" angle.
I'm strongly opposed to any kind of settlement in this area, as it creates a precedent that the manufacturer is responsible for the private use of the item, whether it's guns or oreo cookies. Unfortunately, the gun seller in this case seems to have had, at best, some shady dealings, and that makes all the parties vulnerable to litigation. None the less, a bad shake all around. Notice that they're also suing the snipers, but don't expect that aspect of the case to even reach resolution, much less judgement.
-Rob