The gun-selling website Armslist won a key victory in a Milwaukee County courtroom Tuesday as a judge dismissed all counts brought by the family of a woman killed by her estranged husband at a Brookfield salon four years ago.Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Glenn Yamahiro ruled that the federal Communications Decency Act protected Armslist against negligence and other claims brought in a lawsuit by the family of Zina Daniel Haughton.
Source: Gun website Armslist wins in Azana shooting
Where is the Brady Campaign getting the lawyers? LegalZooom.com? What makes this decision more sweet is that the judge went via the Communications Decency Act instead of the much maligned-by-the-press Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That means that Brady and other Gun Control groups cannot even use it as a war cry and accusing Congress of protecting gun makers and gun related business.
No idea if the judge can or will make the defendants pay for court expenses and lawyer fees.
It sounds as if the judge is personally pro-gun-control, but has the integrity to apply the law the right way:
“Yamahiro agreed the law gives immunity to Armslist but said Armslist is deliberately operating in an online gun market that others have abandoned and he noted Congress’ ‘well-documented impotence to take reasonable action to police firearms which allow meaningful background checks.’
“Yamahiro, who is part of a judicial group focused on domestic violence, noted there was a similar case a year before Zina Daniel Haughton was killed, where an abuser was able to get a gun through an ad on Armslist and commit a murder.
“‘It certainly won’t be the last (such death),’ the judge said. ‘Ms. Haughton’s death may be in vain.'”
Maybe they should call Saul Goodman next time. He actually turned out to be a competent (if ludicrously corrupt) lawyer. Only got taken down because Walt treated the line as a starting point instead of a boundary.
The Brady Campaign is going to keep doing it.
Know why? Simple.
The cannot get before the Supreme Court to get the PLCAA, or any other gun rights law challenged, and potentially found unConstitutional without failing at a lower court level, and working their way through the appeal process.
So far, they have picked stinkers of cases, but sooner or later, they will find a case that has an argument that will meet their needs. Had the judge not ruled on the CDA, and had applied the PLCAA, or something similar instead, they might have an argument for an appeal to a higher court.
The suit on behalf of the Aurora families was a clear attack on the PLCAA, but the outcome might have been a prohibition on ammo sales across state lines. Pretty much the same thing with the Newtown families, an attack on the PLCAA, but this time an attempt to get universal background checks and mental health screening for both the purchaser and their immediate family. Oh, and to get scary black rifles outlawed as well.