Brady Loses Another “Bad Apple” Dealer Suit

Gavel in Court

This was the case in Alaska, where a guy came into Rayco Sales gun shop and stole a gun when the dealer had his back turned. Remember that the Brady Campaign are preying on grieving families by backing their filing of these meritless suits:

“The family is crushed,” Mark Choate, co-counsel for the Kims, told the Empire. “… There was so much evidence that showed there was something being hidden about (Coxe’s) behavior.”

I feel sorry for those people, but the odds were very much stacked against success from the beginning. Their grief was exploited by a gun control organization that is struggling to find relevance in a movement increasingly centered around Mike Bloomberg and his fat wallet.

Choate said even though the jury found Coxe did not sell the weapon to Coday, it doesn’t mean Coxe wasn’t negligent. But a federal gun law — called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA for short — shields guns dealers and manufacturers from claims of gross negligence, he said.

At first I thought he was wrong about PLCAA covering gross negligence, but it only exempts negligent entrustment and negligence per se. That means they had to prove that Coxe violated a statute or regulation, and couldn’t just argue that overall, he was a sloppy dealer. They jury did not find Brady’s argument credible. Negligence and gross negligence is a more subjective standards, which is probably why they were not exempted. Find the right jury, and they might be willing to side with a plaintiff on those claims even if they are meritless.

This was the Brady Center’s best case, and best hope for a victory, and it’s now gone down in flames. PLCAA is not quite a brick wall for the Brady Center, but it’s certainly harding up very quickly.

4 thoughts on “Brady Loses Another “Bad Apple” Dealer Suit”

    1. That must have been their intent- to use this case politically, since their council issued a statement that there is a law that prevents any chance of winning the case. I wonder if they expressed that to the family at the beginning.

  1. Then there is this line from the lawyer:

    “Anybody else in any other business would have been held responsible for the type of conduct that put a gun in Jason Coday’s hands,” Choate said, “but because of federal law that is being pushed by the gun industry, gun dealers and manufacturers have this unique protection.

    Notice how he said any other business would be responsible, but only if they put a gun in their hand. So a liqueur store wouldn’t be held responsible if a teenager stole booze from them and subsequently killed someone in a drunk driving accident, but they would be responsible if the kid stole a gun from them? It sounds like it is the Brady’s who want to see special treatment for guns.

Comments are closed.