Brady Campaign Asks Courts to Ignore Rules, Allow Armslist Suit to Continue


We reported late last week that the Brady Campaign for Civilian Disarmament had lost their lawsuit against Armslist, a website that allows private individuals to get together to buy, sell and trade guns online. The practice of selling a firearm to another resident of the same state is not a crime (in most places), even without a background check. But the Brady Campaign argued that since the Armslist website allows users to view listings of firearms from multiple states, they were enticing people to break the law and ship guns across state lines without a background check. Armslist’s massive disclaimer that pops up whenever you visit the site put the brakes on that idea, but the Bradys were undeterred. And when the normal rules of liability blocked them from pursuing their suit further, they asked the court to ignore the law. You can imagine how well that went over . . .

From the NRA-ILA:

The Brady Campaign, on behalf of Mr. Vesely, asked the court to abandon traditional rules of tort liability and find that Armslist could be liable for the criminal actions of the man who killed Ms. Vesely.  In essence, the Brady Campaign argued that a special rule should apply to Armslist because the advertisements on its website were for firearms, and it should therefore be treated differently than other online classifieds sites.  With help from the NRA, Armslist argued that it should not be subject to different legal rules simply because its website contains advertisements for firearms.

The Brady Campaign doesn’t believe that firearms-related businesses deserve the same protection as other industries. And for that reason they expect that the American legal system to ignore the rules because of, well, the children. Or something.

It’s like asking a hardware store to be liable for a murder committed using a hammer they sold. Or a gas station for selling fuel used to drive into a crowd. It doesn’t even pass the smell test, let alone legal scrutiny. And yet, that’s apparently the Brady Campaign’s entire legal strategy.

I wonder if Armslist will sue the Brady Campaign for vexatious litigation . . .


  1. avatar Avid Reader says:

    That’s like asking for overtime because your team didn’t win the ball game. . .

    Wah, wah, wah.

  2. avatar ST says:

    Dear Court.

    Can we abandon traditional rules on murder and execute a drone airstrike on the Brady Campaign HQ via Predator-launched missile?

    1. avatar wa_2a says:

      You know, for the children.

  3. avatar SelousX says:

    Re this lawsuit: Just more sand in the vasoline…

  4. avatar Jimmy says:

    The anti’s blatant disregard for the rule of law is as obvious as it is pathetic.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      The law does not pertain to them; they represent stardust, sick baby kittens, unicorns and sad, saucer-eyed Keane children.

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        Augh! I’d forgotten about those paintings. Now I need bleach.

        1. avatar VaqueroJustice says:

          AHHHHH ! My EYES! The goggles do nothing !

      2. avatar Andrew says:


    2. avatar Blue says:

      The judge should fine and jail these clowns for contempt of court and not let them out until they come before the court and apologize.

  5. avatar Brennan says:


    They just don’t get it.

  6. avatar wa_2a says:

    Double standard.

    And people STILL see the NRA as the bad guys. Again. Still.

    1. avatar Jason says:

      Not true. A slight majority of Americans have a favorable view of the NRA. A politician would call it a landslide.

  7. avatar Gtfoxy says:


    All I can say is WOW!

  8. avatar Toasty says:

    Hilarious that they’re once again saying that tort laws are different because guns are involved, which is they’re exact same position with the 2nd amendment, that it may be a fundamental right but can’t be treated like other fundamental rights since it involves guns. Thank goodness this judge didn’t buy the BS they’re selling with tort laws but unfortunately the lower courts have bought the “for the children” bs from them on the 2A hook, line and sinker. Very unnerving since Scalia pointed out in his concurring opinion in McDonald that the 2A is in fact, gasp, NOT different because it involves guns. These lower courts are really starting to piss me off, they ignored the 2A writ large until Heller, then post Heller they continue to ignore it, the fact that McDonald lost at the appellate level is testament to this, and now the courts are still saying “until the SCOTUS says something, we’re upholding everything but a absolute ban on handguns inside the home.” SAFE Act will be the next case and clear all this up hopefully. Lower courts need their fucking asses kicked; the fact that in the New Jersey may issue case the majority opinion said that the SCOTUS created the individual right to bear arms says it all. We can’t expect judges that never believed in an individual right to bear arms at all to strike down laws that infringe that right.

  9. avatar Sum Yung Gai says:

    I made you guys something:

    I suggest doing this with every available victim disarmament lobby promo image. See if we can get it into google image results. I will try to do them when I have time. Let me know what you think, or if stupid idea.

    1. avatar wa_2a says:

      It’s good, but “rape victims” is a little narrow. That might be good, because of the emotional factor and the fact it forces people to realize that women also CC. It might be bad, because it’s almost too specific.

      1. avatar VaqueroJustice says:

        That is genius.

    2. avatar Chip says:

      That is Awesome!

      I think it best to use just the last line… fits more issues which means fewer variations to do.

      …”Leading the fight for safer criminals.”

      Can I use that line, by the way? I can offer to pay you royalties in the form of twinkies or other tasty snack cakes…..

    3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      I’ll pitch in to have a billboard done up with this. Right in DC.
      I love it!

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Time for a guerilla sticker campaign for METRO signs.

    4. avatar Andrew says:

      Phh! Thats the same ima-

      AW MAH GAWD!!!!

  10. avatar Pascal says:

    vexatious litigation

    “Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.”

    In the patent troll and copyright troll lawsuits that are very well documented over at arstechnica several people and companies sued and won these grounds and the judges awarded some nice sums of money. I am not sure they meet this standard yet. If they keep trying to do stupid things with the court, they may eventually get to this point.

    What we should be watching is since the Brady Bunch and MAIG are in the pockets of so many politicians, if they do not try to pass a law to carve out gun manufactures which they have tried to do unsuccessfully in the past. But, as a previous post as suggested, all you need is one power supreme jerk who has the power and it could happen. For example, in NYS, MA, CA or MD.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      And they say the NRA is a bully….

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    The Brady Crampain asked the court to abandon traditional rules of tort liability? Okay, let’s see. The traditional American rule is that parties pay their own legal fees in tort cases. I’d like to ask the Brady Vermin if they’d be willing to abandon that traditional rule in favor of “loser pays.”

    It seems fair to me.

  12. avatar JeffR says:

    If anyone is curious, here’s the opinion. It is a short, but sweet, three pages.

  13. avatar DisThunder says:

    They’ve gotta picking up all kinds of weird hair and stuff, circling the drain this fast….

  14. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Screw this crap – NRA needs to file a motion for SANCTIONS!!! Even if the Brady Campaign skates, make their lawyers take in the a$$

  15. avatar Stacy says:

    The Brady Campaign doesn’t believe that firearms-related businesses deserve the same protection as other industries.

    To be fair, they probably think all industries should be hounded into oblivion equally…

  16. avatar Mark says:

    Liberals (progressive) are like that. Yes there are rules but it is ok if they ignore them. Let’s face it, rules are different for the progressives.

  17. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Perhaps it’s time to go on the offensive. The NRA or other of our organizations could sue the Brady Bunch, MAIG, et. al. as a group as a “Combination in Restraint of Trade.”

    combination in restraint of trade – (law) any monopoly or contract or combination or conspiracy intended to restrain commerce (which are illegal according to antitrust laws of the United States)

    The logic could be that they are restraining commerce in guns and ammunition.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      How about under RICO Laws.

  18. avatar Joseph B Campbell says:

    Vexatious Litigation? WOW!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email