Armslist Not Liable for Hosting Gun Sale Ads That Led to Purchases by People Who Used the Guns Criminally

[MaverickNH]

Armslist Not Liable for Hosting Gun Sale Ads That Led to Purchases by People Who Used the Guns Criminally

From Monday's decision in Webber v. Armslist LLC, decided by the Seventh Circuit in an opinion by Judge Michael Brennan,...

reason.com

This case appears to be a tour de force in denying liability for crimes committed using guns “bought on the internet.”

 

[StevieP]

Good. The only person ever responsible for shooting someone, is the shooter.

doesn't matter how or where or by what means they acquired the gun.

 

[usp45ct]

That’s too bad as I wanted to sue Carvana for a car that hit my car a few weeks back.

 

[Blackmore]

Interesting read.

 

[Drix]

I tell my family all the time- I die tragically sue everyone.

Choke on an oreo? Sue oreo, sue all the television and radio stations that run the ads, sue the advertising agency that made the ads, sue the super market I bought them from, sue facebook. They're all culpable in my choking on that oreo.

Also gonna need to sue big milk.

If I die of old age i want every last penny of my estate to go into suing everytown for letting me live so long.

 

[AJK129]

I tell my family all the time- I die tragically sue everyone.

Choke on an oreo? Sue oreo, sue all the television and radio stations that run the ads, sue the advertising agency that made the ads, sue the super market I bought them from, sue facebook. They're all culpable in my choking on that oreo.

Also gonna need to sue big milk.

If I die of old age i want every last penny of my estate to go into suing everytown for letting me live so long.

Im suing you for tripping down the stairs while reading your post

 

[Drix]

Im suing you for tripping down the stairs while reading your post

We can settle this out of court, I got two pennies, and a single 357 magnum HP cartridge to my name. Be a sport and leave me the cartridge?

 

[nstassel]

The problem for Armslist is that the Brady Foundation doesn't expect to win these cases. They want to kill Armslisy by waging a war of attrition through hopeless litigation. Courts don't seem to be willing to grant expenses because the lawsuits aren't totally meritless.

 

[Uzi2]

The problem for Armslist is that the Brady Foundation doesn't expect to win these cases. They want to kill Armslisy by waging a war of attrition through hopeless litigation. Courts don't seem to be willing to grant expenses because the lawsuits aren't totally meritless.

No, courts don't seem to be willing to grant expenses, because the courts and everyone involved with their operations benefit from the cases brought before them.

Its all a money making racket, and you of all people should know this.

 

[BTSDOG]

Good. The only person ever responsible for shooting someone, is the shooter.

doesn't matter how or where or by what means they acquired the gun.

Ok, scenario: You own firearms. You also have a child with mental health issues. You dont lock your guns up, the child grabs a gun and goes out on a shooting spree. Whos responsible, your child, You, or both of you ??

 

[Drix]

Ok, scenario: You own firearms. You also have a child with mental health issues. You dont lock your guns up, the child grabs a gun and goes out on a shooting spree. Whos responsible, your child, You, or both of you ??

Both.

The parent in this situation is an unwilling or negligent accessory, but still an accessory.

 

[StevieP]

Ok, scenario: You own firearms. You also have a child with mental health issues. You dont lock your guns up, the child grabs a gun and goes out on a shooting spree. Whos responsible, your child, You, or both of you ??

I reject the premise, as if *I* had a child with mental health issues, I would lock up any guns that weren't on my hip or otherwise within my immediate control.

Regardless, let's stay on topic. The premise for THIS case is someone who purchased a gun, having only found out about it via an advertisement, and then using it criminally. Whyever would the advertiser be guilty? They were not the seller, and certainly not the buyer / shooter.

If you bought a car via a newspaper advertisement, and then drove drunk and killed people in the resulting crash, would the newspaper be liable??

 

[BTSDOG]

I reject the premise, as if *I* had a child with mental health issues, I would lock up any guns that weren't on my hip or otherwise within my immediate control.

Regardless, let's stay on topic. The premise for THIS case is someone who purchased a gun, having only found out about it via an advertisement, and then using it criminally. Whyever would the advertiser be guilty? They were not the seller, and certainly not the buyer / shooter.

If you bought a car via a newspaper advertisement, and then drove drunk and killed people in the resulting crash, would the newspaper be liable??

I went by your statement of it didnt matter of how, when where or by what means it was aquired. Remember SANDY HOOK ?

 

[PaulR]

not liable.............................for now.

But they will keep trying

 

[StevieP]

I went by your statement of it didnt matter of how, when where or by what means it was aquired. Remember SANDY HOOK ?

Well, yeah. Who else but Adam Lanza was responsible? He stole his mother's guns, shot her, then school children and teachers. Are you saying the store that sold them to his mother should be held accountable? Or do you want to dig up her grave and arrest her for improper storage (although he got the guns out of a locked safe. He had the combination)?

Or do you agree with Sandy Hook Promise, and want to hold the gun manufacturers accountable because of their advertising of "military style" firearms?

I'll stick to just blaming Adam Lanza.

 

[BTSDOG]

Well, yeah. Who else but Adam Lanza was responsible? He stole his mother's guns, shot her, then school children and teachers. Are you saying the store that sold them to his mother should be held accountable? Or do you want to dig up her grave and arrest her for improper storage (although he got the guns out of a locked safe. He had the combination)?

Or do you agree with Sandy Hook Promise, and want to hold the gun manufacturers accountable because of their advertising of "military style" firearms?

I'll stick to just blaming Adam Lanza.

You dont think his mother (yeah i know shes dead, he killed her) was responsible ? She knew he had issues, yet let him have access. I blame both of them. Not the gun, not the store that sold it or the company that made it. Lets attach the blame to those responsible. And if your any kind of firearm owner with children, and you dont secure them, in my eyes your a irresponsible idiot.....JMO

 

[usp45ct]

The problem for Armslist is that the Brady Foundation doesn't expect to win these cases. They want to kill Armslisy by waging a war of attrition through hopeless litigation. Courts don't seem to be willing to grant expenses because the lawsuits aren't totally meritless.

so by the same token, a group of 2 lawyers could sue Brady for not getting out of the path of the gunman’s bullets.

 

[StevieP]

You dont think his mother (yeah i know shes dead, he killed her) was responsible ? She knew he had issues, yet let him have access. I blame both of them. Not the gun, not the store that sold it or the company that made it. Lets attach the blame to those responsible. And if your any kind of firearm owner with children, and you dont secure them, in my eyes your a irresponsible idiot.....JMO

Yes I agree parents of kids who take their gun and commit mayhem need to be held accoutable for their devil spawn. Mrs Lanza f***ed around and found out, then bled out. So Adam killing her was karmic justice, and saved CT from the hassle of prosecuting her?

This was a story about an advertisement hosting website, though. Armslist is not analogous to Mrs. Lanza