Mike Levin: “The Senator is correct. In terms of the definition of ``victims,'' we are talking here about families who lose loved…”

“The Senator is correct. In terms of the definition of ``victims,'' we are talking here about families who lose loved ones as well as people who are injured themselves. I want to emphasize one fact here, which is there was a motion to dismiss this case in the State of Washington brought by victims against Bull's Eye and against Bushmaster. On June 27, 2003, the court denied the motions, and here is what the court said: [T]he facts in the present case indicate that a high degree of risk of harm to the plaintiffs was created by Bull's Eye Shooter Supply's alleged reckless or incompetent conduct in distributing firearms. The court said it was the defendant's actions that caused damage to the plaintiffs. It seems to me for us to say even though Bull's Eye caused damage through recklessness or gross negligence to victims, we are going to deny those victims a remedy unless they can prove there was an illegal action--not just a reckless action, but an illegal action--is to mistreat this particular class of victims. To single out this class of victims and say, ``You cannot recover unless you can prove illegal action on the part of the defendant''--not just that they were reckless, not just that they were negligent--I think is highly arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of real victims who right now can go to court, and if they can show reckless behavior, negligent behavior on the part of the defendants that was a proximate cause of their injury, then they can recover.…”