Brady Center Files Suit On Behalf Of Officer's Widow Against Gun Shop That Sold Firearm Used To Killed Officer….

So the Brady Center has roped in the widow of an officer who lost his life in the line of duty to sue the gun shop that sold the firearm that was used to kill her husband (Brady Center sues gun shop).

Only problem is, the firearm was sold in what is known as a "straw purchase."

In other words, a person who was legally able to buy a firearm, representing him-/herself as the actual purchaser of the firearm, made the  purchase on behalf of someone else who was legally ineligible to do so.  They lied to the gun shop and filled out the NICS 4473 background check form, successfully passing the background check.

Anyone else see the problem here?

The gun shop completed a transaction in good faith.  That is the critical key: good faith.  According to Lawyers.com, good faith, which derives from the latin, bona fides, means the following:

"… honesty, fairness, and lawfulness of purpose 
: absence of any intent to defraud, act maliciously, or take unfair advantage…

… In section 1-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code good faith is defined generally as «honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned." Article 2 of the U.C.C. says «good faith in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade." Similarly, Article 3 on negotiable instruments defines good faith as «honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.."

The Brady Campaign contends that the fact that the buyer had completed multiple firearms transactions in a relatively short period of time should have alerted the firearms dealer that they were faced with a straw purchaser, but in no arena of endeavor is the fact of multiple transactions evidence or proof of malicious or criminal intent.  The firearms dealer did everything that is required of them under federal and state laws to insure that the firearm was being purchased by someone who was legally eligible to make such a purchase.  They had no reason to believe that the purchaser was conducting the transaction on behalf of an ineligible individual.

But only God is omniscient (all-knowing).

The Brady Center cares nothing about justice; they care about their agenda.  Their agenda is to disarm everyone, and they will use an emotionally fragile widow to build an emotionally based prosecution with the goal of 1) shutting down this particular gun shop and 2) attempting to pass even more restrictive gun control laws - all of which have been proven to be completely ineffective in preventing criminals from acquiring firearms.

Let me put it this way: according to the logic upon which this case is based, one should be able to sue the car dealership that sells a vehicle to someone who gives that vehicle to an ineligible person who then drives it, causing an accident that injures or kills a family member, or the pet shop owner who sells an animal to an individual who then allows the animal to run freely, during which activity the animal attacks and mauls or kills the paperboy.  Because merchants are not omniscient, there is no way they can know how their merchandise will be used or abused by the customer.

Courts have consistently ruled that firearms dealers that demonstrate good faith in firearms transactions cannot be held criminally or civilly liable in such cases, but that isn't stopping the Brady Center from trying yet again to ruin a business owner.

Perhaps it is time for the Brady Campaign to formally adopt as its motto, "Rerum agendarum ordinemante omnia," the agenda before all else.