BREAKING: We’re suing three ghost gun retailers for selling untraceable guns.
These kits are specifically designed to be purchased w/o a background check or serial number.
We’ve joined @ChesaBoudin to hold them accountable for endangering public safety.https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/us/sf-ghost-guns.html …
-
-
Replying to @GiffordsCourage @chesaboudin
A poll of leading legal experts reveals that they would prefer to represent the manufacturers in this case because they would be paid from the legal fees which will be awarded against
@giffordscourage following the dismissal of this baseless lawsuit.2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
The experts also say that
@GiffordsCourage may be exposed to a judgment against it for malicious prosecution of the lawsuit which is without merit in the facts or at law.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
But if these are classified as being something other than a gun - doesn’t that make the manufacturer liable for incidents its involved in? Seems like you can’t have it both ways. It’s either a gun or not a gun.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Can you elaborate?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It shouldn’t be necessary, but legal liability requires fault.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right - but if these ghost manic are creating a product that kills someone - can’t the argument be made that this product - if used as intended - is dangerous? Gun makers are immune - but if this thing isn’t a gun - don’t the makers / sellers have exposure?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Not ‘manic’. That should be ‘manuf’
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.