Ravenwood - 12/28/04 07:30 AM
A woman is suing Wal-Mart because she claims that the company should have known about her daughter's history of mental illness and refused to sell her a gun.
The case, filed earlier this month, has reignited a debate over the confidentiality of mental health records and the effectiveness of background checks on would-be buyers of guns.Doing so would not only have violated numerous federal privacy laws, it relies on the premise that you can prejudge someone's mental capacity based on their prescription records."We know that if they had so much as said, `Why do you want this?' we would not be having this conversation because Shayla would have had a meltdown," said her stepfather, Garrett Bracy.
The Bracys said Wal-Mart's gun department could have checked Wal-Mart's own security files or the pharmacy department's prescription records before selling her the weapon.
Not only should this lawsuit be thrown out, Wal-Mart should be awarded legal fees.
Why do I get the feeling that her history of mental illness could legitimately be linked to shitty parenting? At the very least, her parents aren't too bright.
Their entire case seems to be built on the premise that Wal-Mart should have checked her pharmacy records before selling her the gun, which is clearly prohibited by law.
If the best you can do is to claim that Wal-Mart owes you $25 million because they failed to properly break federal privacy laws, then you either need to accept that Wal-Mart has done nothing wrong or get a better lawyer.
Posted by: roger at December 28, 2004 9:03 AMThey don't have to have a good case. All they need to do is make it more financially attractive for Wal-Mart to settle out of court.
Posted by: Ravenwood at December 28, 2004 9:05 AMGood point.
Now I know they are shitty parents. Imagine using the tragic, possibly preventable death of your daughter to extort money from someone else. These are sick, sick people.
I certainly hope Wal-Mart holds tight on this one. This would open a floodgate that may never close again.
Posted by: roger at December 28, 2004 1:27 PMThere is much more happening here than just greed. The VPC and Brady types have long held that litigation of any kind (which is cost-prohibitive to the manufacturer, distributor or retailer of firearms to defend against) is an effective method for furthering their agenda. If they cannot win by fact or truth (two things they are in very short supply of), then promoting lies and costly, frivolous litigation is just as good.
Posted by: Steve Scudder at December 28, 2004 5:30 PMThere's an old saying:
If you have the law on your side, argue the law
if you have facts on your side, argue the facts
If you have neither, just yell scream and shout at the top of your lungs.
The last paragraph can be changed for todays society to read: if you have neither, just use emotional pleadings.
Posted by: Rhett at December 29, 2004 9:21 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
