Texas School Shooting
A state trooper carries a sign handed to him to be place at a memorial honoring the victims killed in this week's elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas Saturday, May 28, 2022. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
Previous Post
Next Post

Last week, the mother of one of the children murdered in the Uvalde school shooting filed a lawsuit against the city, the school district and, Daniel Defense, the maker of the rifle the killer bought and used that day. The response to the shooting by law enforcement was an utter failure on almost every level. That’s hardly unusual. Similar botched failures to follow well-established active shooter response protocols have cost lives in places like Parkland and the Pulse Nightclub shooting.

But this suit, filed by Sandra Torres and backed by one of Michael Bloomberg’s gun control operations, is of a piece with others that have tried to put at least some of the blame on gunmakers for allegedly over-the-top and negligent marketing of their products that plaintiffs claim prompted the killers to act.

It’s an obvious attempt to sidestep the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and hobble or bankrupt gun companies using lawfare where gun control hasn’t worked.

From US News . . .

The lawsuit accuses the city, the school district and several police departments of a “complete failure” to follow active shooter protocols and violations of the victims’ constitutional rights by “barricading them” inside two classrooms with the killer for more than an hour. The city said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation and the school district and police did not immediately return messages.

Torres is being helped by the legal arm of the group Everytown for Gun Safety. Her suit also names the manufacturer of the AR-style semiautomatic rifle that Salvador Ramos used to fire more than 100 rounds in the horrific mass shooting…

The new Uvalde suit alleges that marketing tactics by Daniel Defense violated the Federal Trade Commission Act by negligently using militaristic imagery, product placement in combat video games and social media to target “vulnerable and violent young men,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director at Everytown Law…

This was the second lawsuit filed after the Uvalde shooting.

Today, Daniel Defense CEO Marty Daniel issued a strongly-worded statement in response, including this . . .

This lawsuit is yet another in a growing line of blatant and legally unfounded attempts to bankrupt the firearms industry. We reject and will vigorously defend against these politically motivated attempts to blame Daniel Defense for the criminal actions of others, as well as to undermine your means of self-defense secured by the Second Amendment.

The erosion of public trust and personal responsibility in our nation has only served to embolden criminals and instigate crime waves across the country. Michael Bloomberg is the same person who wanted to blame obesity on soda cup size; now he wants to shift blame from the shooter to the firearm industry. 

Here’s Daniel’s full statement . . .

Notably, a $27 billion class action lawsuit was filed this morning in US District Court in Austin targeting those responsible for the disastrous response to the shooting. The suit names the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District’s police department, the city of Uvalde Police Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety and individual officers from each of the named agencies who were there that day.

This latest lawsuit does not name Daniel Defense as a respondent.

 

Previous Post
Next Post

48 COMMENTS

      • The negligent and responsible ones are the parents who failed day after day to keep their children out of a school ran and secured by total incompetence.

        Obviously none of the parents can testify they took the time to investiigate and verify their children were protected in a school that was secure against the possibility of such an attack. The kind of murderous attacks in schools that were nothing new therefore deaf, dumb and blind excuses won’t fly.

        The “sensitivity” aspect surrounding such frivilous lawsuits needs to be ended in the opening statements.

        • I’m sure if they asked the teachers if they would leave doors required to be locked unlocked, they would’ve said ‘of course’. And if they had asked the police, State Patrol, Border Patrol, etc. if they would stand by and do nothing as children were slaughtered, they would have also answered ‘of course.

          What a fool.

  1. they sue for billions we sue for trillions and see if during discovery if an illegal conspiracy or even treasonous acts are being committed or underwritten by certain antiConstitutional bigots.

    I want to know where this kid got the funds for DD rifles. FBI, ATF, DHS, CIA, or directly from the White House or someone like Soros or Bloomberg.

        • they might pro- rate them to some extent.
          got my trio baseball mitt and my (steel) tackle box at wieboldts with green stamps.
          the ed matthews h&b bat was from mom filling up the beetle at will’s gulf station (my friend danny pope lived right across the street, his father was executed in the parking lot a few years later) 9gal @ .39cents per…

    • No shit! I have what is considered a good job by most, 80k+\ yr, I can’t afford a Daniel Defense anything. My ar is a m&p that was on clearance because the sporterII had come out.

    • whike you are learning bout that, why not also find the REAL source of the funds used to purchase what I have heard is a VERY expensive pickup truck he was driving around during that time. All on the salary of a grunt worker in a go nowhere job?

      • Tio – the pickup he crashed in was technically stolen from his grandmother who was his first shooting victim. She survived.
        As to where he got the bucks from, IIRC he used credit cards, obviously with no intent to pay them off. Now the question has to be asked how did he get those with his at best meager work history. Then again, presuming that is how he ‘paid’ for the guns/accessories, should that perhaps have raised a red flag or three? An 18 year old spending around 5K wouldn’t seem a ‘bit’ suspicious would it?

  2. Remington ended up paying out a huge sum (73 million) because of the Sandy Hook massacre. The public at large is outraged over the use of weapons of war in mass murders so Daniel Defense is in very great danger of losing a lawsuit or being pressured into paying out the ass like Remington did as Remington realized it was cheaper to pay up quick than fight it out in court for years and spend many more times that amount of money.

    These days it would be very difficult to find an impartial jury when it comes to defending companies like Daniel Defense that markets assault rifles.

    The rapid pace of mass murder by assault rifle just may make it in the end impractical and economically unfeasible for firearms companies to continue to market weapons of war so no new gun ban law would be necessary to stop the sale of assault rifles.

    • dacian
      Remington didn’t pay a single cent and no longer existed when that settlement was made. The company that insured them while they were still in business made the settlement with no input from anyone in the Firearms industry. It was a unique set of circumstances that are unlikely to ever be repeated.

      • to bill

        You ignore the entirety of my post. Your response was non sequitur. What I said stands and that is the more lawsuits leveled and won against firearms companies over the sale of assault rifles will in the end force them to quit making and selling them.

        • That is NEVER going to happen. All arms that are procured by western Governments and civilians alike come from the private sector now. State-Owned arms manufacturers don’t really exist anymore outside of China. That will find a way to keep selling their products. Be certain of that.

        • His response was not ignored. You ignored his response because your Marxist, anti Constitution blinders prevent any useful or correct information from coming into view.

          You and your ilk would be funny if you were not so fact free dumb.

    • some of their ads have been over the top…maybe displaying a bit of defiance, even arrogance…this makes them vulnerable yet they still don’t seem to get it…

      • Some of their ads have been over the top?

        Yes, like Ralphie unwrapping his AR 15 on Christmas morning…

        “These days it would be very difficult to find an impartial jury when it comes to defending companies like Daniel Defense“

        Yep.

    • Dacian. it wasn’t Remington that settled but their insurance company. The insurance company decided it was cheaper to settle than litigate in court. DD will fight & will probably win. if they do win I hope the plaintiff has to pay all of the defendant’s legal fees.

      • “Dacian, do you suck dick?“

        You sound so hopeful…

        Why do you folks always choose a same sex slur first?

        You could’ve attacked his intelligence, his looks, his choice of political party, etc. but for you, the same sex insult has top priority.

        Thank you for this moment of insight into your internal dialogue, very revealing.

        • Miner, do you suck dick or impossible dick when you are cruising in your ev? If you are a 49r, how can you say anything about tn? Sanfran is definitely fucked up as a soup sandwich. You talk like a shit salesman with a mouthful of samples.

    • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. The Remington case is a ludicrious example of a jury running hog wild. The award by the jury should never have been upheld. There was no legal foundation for it. Remington did NOTHING that caused the Sandy Hook mass shooting, except manufacture a firearm. LAST I heard, manufacturing a firearm is not illegal, immoral or fattening. And the matter was settled by the insurance company not be Remington itself. Again for about the 1000th time, an AR-15 which is a semi-automatic rifle is NOT a “weapon of war.” No military in the world would issue a semi-auto only rifle to its people. Your phrase, “weapon of war” is meant to INFLAME people and is based on thin air. You anti-gun radicals use the term based on the fact that the original AR was built as a military rifle and EVOLVED (you do understand the meaning of the word) into a popular CIVILIAN rifle which is ONLY capable of semiautomatic fire unless there is radical modification to the firearm using tools not readily available and would require a lot of skill as a gunsmith. And again for the 10,000th time an AR-15 is NOT an “assault rifle”, a fact we have been over time and again.
      It’s really time for you and your radical buds to wake the heck up.

    • If I owned DD and some Liberal Court found against me I’d file for BR and tell them to ferking pound sand.This Country is so sue crazy that anything a lawyer can find under a stone is fair game to drag into court.

    • dacian, Officer Bill was correct. The insurance ‘companies’ that were involved in the bankruptcy cases of Remington (this bankruptcy had nothing to do with Sandy Hook) wanted to close out the bankruptcy proceedings so they (the insurance companies) agreed to a settlement to close the lawsuit so that the bankruptcy could be completed. There was no admission of fault by any of the parties. Secondly these weapons are NOT weapons of war. They have never been in the hands of our military on a battlefield. Please stop using that term as it makes you out to be an idiot that does not know what your are talking about. As for an impartial jury, part of any trial is educating jurors about the weapon. Once they learn the truth about these weapons they become impartial. Also the PLCAA protects the manufacturers, wholesellers, and retailers.

  3. The anti-gun mafia have immensely more money than any 2A defense group, or manufacturer of firearm components.*

    *Related, just barely:

    ATF is declaring everything but the actual firearm itself is not a firearm, thus not protected by 2A. At the same time, ATF (Firearms) claims they are chartered to regulate non firearms (triggers, magazines, grips, forestocks, barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, stabilization braces….the usual suspects.

  4. There is an easy solution for these types of lawsuits.
    1) Gun manufacturers need to band together and refuse to sell any firearms to state and federal police and military forces unless PLCAA is revised to prevent these end-runs around it.
    2) A merciless financial and social boycott by consumers on any gun manufacturer that doesn’t join in to step #1.

  5. I’ll say this, any time that some Democrat goes on about “no other industry having immunity from lawsuits like the gun industry does” point out that the police literally sat by here and their case will get tossed due to qualified immunity. Mark my words, none of these PDs will probably see meaningful penalties from this negligence and failure to act at all.

    Also, I look forward to MSM orgs getting sued for Media Contagion. I think the Buffalo Shooter’s manifesto would be able to cement a nice pay out for them if the Remington/Sandy Hook settlements are any indication.

  6. Wouldn’t it be fun if the “gun industry” banded together as a class and sued Everytown for malicious and frivolous prosecution?

    Give them a little of their own medicine.

  7. These law suits against the gun manufacturers is ludicrious and STUPID! A gun manufacturer has no control over who buys their products. These Anti-Gun Radicals that has gotten these laws passed are abusing the system.

  8. Daniel Defense has fired back at a lawsuit filed by Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety on behalf of Uvalde, TX shooting victim Patrick Dwyer. In his statement, CEO Marc Boerner said the suit was “complete fiction” and that “the facts conclusively prove that [the firearm] would not have caused any of the injuries or damages alleged.” Two days ago, Everytown for Gun Safety, an anti-gun group that was founded by Michael Bloomberg, filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense alleging that their products are responsible for the recent mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

  9. Start suing alcoholic beverage makers and automakers along the same lines for having and selling (marketing) inherently dangerous products!

  10. I frtequently skip over advertising, maybe I should pay greater attention to it. Did Daniel Defense really advertise that their products are well suited to mass killing of elementary school aged children? If so then they (DD) should pay the piper however if not then the litigant should pay DD for defamation and loss of millions (I’m sure) of dollars in lost sales. My opinion is that any legal entity that files spurious law suits should be held responsible for damages and expenses incurred by the defendants and the courts systems should be held in equal liability for allowing such a case to proceed in folly.

  11. On rereading this post and the comments I had an ‘interesting’ thought: how much ‘victim shopping’ did the liars oops lawyers (so easy to get them confused) have to do before they found a person to be the ‘face’ of the lawsuit. IIRC they pulled that stunt with a family from Aurora and when the suit was tossed out they left that person high and dry with a huge legal bill.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here