Brady v. Walmart, Inc

DC-W · Jan 23, 2022

Full docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59974182/brady-v-walmart-inc/
This is a Brady, United Against Gun Violence-backed suit where Walmart is being sued over a situation where a Walmart in Maryland sold a shotgun to an employee who hours later would take his own life with it. The spouse of the deceased is the lead plaintiff.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491.3.0.pdf

The case was originally filed in state court, but plaintiffs had it moved to federal court over the summer. Later, they'd make a constitutional challenge against the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in an attempt to hold players in the gun industry liable for the deaths of others. This is part of a wider national strategy by the gun control groups
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59974182/35/brady-v-walmart-inc/

The US Department of Justice moved to intervene last month in defense of the Act.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491.38.0.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491.40.0.pdf

A couple of weeks ago, Brady filed a response to the DOJ
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59974182/brady-v-walmart-inc/#entry-41

It's all interesting stuff and it's happening in our backyard.

Bob A · Jan 23, 2022

Surprising that the DoJ is standing firm against the coalition of grabbers. I'd have thought that current leadership would be delighted to disarm the public; at least, that part of the public that was more or less law-abiding.

It's not very Maryland of them, somehow.

DC-W · Jan 23, 2022

Bob A said:
Surprising that the DoJ is standing firm against the coalition of grabbers. I'd have thought that current leadership would be delighted to disarm the public; at least, that part of the public that was more or less law-abiding.

It's not very Maryland of them, somehow.

DOJ is charged with defending laws passed by Congress. Their filings reflect that the Biden admin may disagree with the policy of PLCAA, but that is not to challenge its legality. Garland himself has mentioned that its constitutionality has been upheld.

Slackdaddy · Jan 23, 2022

Reading the Docs,, Walmart followed the law, and he passed the background check.
Walmart is being sued because everyone involved with the sale should have known the personal back ground of the deceased (he was an employee of the walmart that he bought the gun from).
The deceased had hospital stays for depression, but still passed the NICS.
If a FFL does not sell a firearm because they "Have a feeling" the buyer will use it to harm themselves or other,, they could get sued for discrimination.
If they do sell it and it is used illegally, they could get sued. What we need is some sort of "instant background check system" ???

rbird7282 · Jan 23, 2022

Slackdaddy said:
Reading the Docs,, Walmart followed the law, and he passed the background check.
Walmart is being sued because everyone involved with the sale should have known the personal back ground of the deceased (he was an employee of the walmart that he bought the gun from).
The deceased had hospital stays for depression, but still passed the NICS.
If a FFL does not sell a firearm because they "Have a feeling" the buyer will use it to harm themselves or other,, they could get sued for discrimination.
If they do sell it and it is used illegally, they could get sued. What we need is some sort of "instant background check system" ???

Has there ever been an FFL sued because they chose not to sell a firearm to someone because of a feeling of misuse?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

teratos · Jan 23, 2022

DC-W said:
Full docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59974182/brady-v-walmart-inc/
This is a Brady, United Against Gun Violence-backed suit where Walmart is being sued over a situation where a Walmart in Maryland sold a shotgun to an employee who hours later would take his own life with it. The spouse of the deceased is the lead plaintiff.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491.3.0.pdf

The case was originally filed in state court, but plaintiffs had it moved to federal court over the summer. Later, they'd make a constitutional challenge against the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in an attempt to hold players in the gun industry liable for the deaths of others. This is part of a wider national strategy by the gun control groups
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59974182/35/brady-v-walmart-inc/

The US Department of Justice moved to intervene last month in defense of the Act.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491.38.0.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491/gov.uscourts.mdd.495491.40.0.pdf

A couple of weeks ago, Brady filed a response to the DOJ
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59974182/brady-v-walmart-inc/#entry-41

It's all interesting stuff and it's happening in our backyard.

Dumb suit, IMO. It’s going to go in “our” favor and they will have more opposing precedent.

smokey · Jan 23, 2022

Curious if they have sued belt, alcohol, or knife manufacturers as well. Why only go after manufacturers of tools that are the hardest to acquire? There are just as many suicides each year committed by other means as there are with firearms.

Boats · Jan 23, 2022

First off:

It is my firm belief that the spouse is suing because she knows that SHE is the one who should have been the first to step in and prevent the suicide of her husband. By suing WalMart she is able to pass the blame onto them and absolve herself of any responsibility.

Second, it is my firm belief that, with her "ain't my fault attitude" she was the primary reason that her husband killed himself. Probably because of years of blame and emotional abuse. I would be surprised if he didn't mention this in the suicide note.

Finally, the DOJ is defending this because they don't have much choice otherwise. It has already been challenged in SCOTUS and held to be constitutional. Furthermore, if it were overturned, then ALL companies could be held liable for suicides to include: Bridge manufacturers, state and county governments, razor blade manufacturers, chair and rope manufacturers, car manufacturers etc.

Biggfoot44 · Jan 23, 2022

Actually , I have brought up the knife , rope , tall buildings , medications , cars either driven into fixed objects or idling in closed garage , etc , as well as comparing international suicide rates in countries with low or no civilian firearms in discussions with Anti's .

Their stock canned response is along the lines of : But guns usually produce final results the first time . Every other non firearm suicide is usually not successful , just a Cry for Help , and after counseling they will no longer try again . Yeah , I know . But that's their narrative , and they're sticking to it .

For the record , if anyone were to ask me if they should kill themselves , and they hadn't already spend a half hour talking about their terminal cancer , impending untreatable severe disability that would remove all quality of life , or impending 50 yrs without parole of being Bubba's Bitch , I would tell them No , Don't Do That !

noddaz · Jan 23, 2022

The lawyers may have convinced the spouse there is a case, unless this is just another attempt to destroy the gun industry one lawsuit at a time.
But this is purely conjecture, I do not know the whole story here.

Bob A · Jan 23, 2022

DC-W said:
DOJ is charged with defending laws passed by Congress. Their filings reflect that the Biden admin may disagree with the policy of PLCAA, but that is not to challenge its legality. Garland himself has mentioned that its constitutionality has

Forgive me if I feel that DoJ could give a rat's ass about constitutionality over politics, at least on the top floors, where the action is.

Garland's statement is a CYA to defend himself against being cancelled. His sense of what's constitutional is on display in Loudon County.

Jim12 · Jan 23, 2022

Bob A said:
Forgive me if I feel that DoJ could give a rat's ass about constitutionality over politics, at least on the top floors, where the action is.

Garland's statement is a CYA to defend himself against being cancelled. His sense of what's constitutional is on display in Loudon County.

With friends like Garland, who needs enemas?

Brady v. Walmart, Inc

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

DC-W

Ultimate Member

Bob A

όυ φροντισ

DC-W

Ultimate Member

Slackdaddy

My pronouns: Iva/Bigun

rbird7282

Ultimate Member

teratos

My hair is amazing

smokey

2A TEACHER

Boats

Broken Member

Biggfoot44

Ultimate Member

noddaz

bonehead

Bob A

όυ φροντισ

Jim12

Let Freedom Ring

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page