by Ask the Brady Center.
In a case coming from Connecticut, Gilland v. Sportsman’s Outpost, Inc., four minutes meant a lot. From Larry Keane, General Counsel of NSSF:
After the Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs continued their attack against the PLCAA by renewing their motion to file a third amended complaint and separate motion to reargue the order dismissing their case. Unfortunately for the Brady Campaign, their attorneys filed their paperwork four minutes after the filing deadline. The Superior Court subsequently denied the motion to reargue as untimely and denied their motion to amend — in part because the plaintiffs had already been granted several opportunities to establish that their claims were not barred by the PLCAA and failed to do so each time.
In this case the plaintiffs tried to hold a store in Connecticut responsible for a wrongful death claim as well as negligence for a firearm that was stolen from it. The defendents argued that under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) they couldn’t be sued and the Superior Court agreed.
The Brady Center appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court arguing for a chance to reargue their case and again challenging the PLCAA’s constitutionality. This appeal was denied and the court issued a ruling affirming the Superior Court’s decision dismissing the case on PLCAA grounds and upholding its constitutionality.
The full opinion of the Superior Court in Hartford from May can be found here.
The NSSF reported on this in their May 31st Bullet Points saying:
Last week a Connecticut trial court dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Brady Center against a Connecticut firearms retailer, Sportsmen’s Outpost, on the grounds that the case was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). A firearm and ammunition were stolen from the dealer in 2007 and used by the thief several weeks later to murder his ex-wife and commit suicide. The Brady Center unsuccessfully argued that the stolen firearm was somehow transferred by the dealer and that the dealer should have conducted a Brady background check on the thief when he walked into the store acting like a customer asking to see firearms. Of course, the Brady Center knows background checks can only be performed when a firearm is being transferred, not whenever any customer asks to look at a firearm. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the PLCAA. Representing Sportsmen’s Outpost was the Renzulli Law Firm of White Plains, N.Y.
How important are 4 minutes? I'll bet that the average person could survive 4 minutes without oxygen. To test this, I suggest that Dennis Hennigan take a bathtub out on to his front lawn and fill it with water. Then he should call 911 and tell them that an intruder is breaking into his house. As soon as he tells the dispatcher, someone grabs him by the head and sticks it underwater. If the cops get there in less than 4 minutes to rescue him, he gets to live.
Call it a test of his proposal that we don't need a gun in the house to protect ourselves, we should just call the cops.
On the other hand, I think that they actually won. Every penny that the Sportsmen's Outpost spent defending themselves was money that can't go into the owner's pockets, into the employee's paychecks, or into anything that would expand the business. Enough parasites and an organism will die. The Bradys are just trying to be enough parasites to push another gun store out of business. They will also have the added effect of scaring the insurance companies, raising premiums, and possibly forcing new and expensive changes in how guns are sold. It's only a win if the Brady Campaign is forced, Righthaven Style, to pay attorney fees. If that happens, I'm first in line to buy the Brady Campaign website.