by James A. Bacon

In a news conference yesterday the parents of D’Sean Perry, one of three University of Virginia football players slain in a mass shooting last month, called for changes to gun laws and faulted UVa for failing to boot their son’s killer off campus. Said D’Sean’s father Sean Perry: “(We want) to make sure another family will never, never go through this again.”

According to CNN, the Perrys said they wanted unspecified reforms to “gun laws” (CNN’s words), although it was unclear from the article what remedies they sought. “The red flags were there, and (the suspect) was still able to purchase a firearm,” said D’Sean’s mother, Happy Perry. Here’s the background provided by CNN:

[Shooter Christopher] Jones was twice denied in his attempts to buy firearms – once in 2018 because he was under the legal purchasing age of 21 to buy a handgun, and once in 2021 due to a pending criminal charge, Dance’s Sporting Goods owner Marlon Dance has said.

But he was able to legally purchase firearms this year – a rifle in February and a 9mm pistol in July – Dance has said. It is unclear whether either of those weapons were used in the November shooting.

This year’s purchases were not prohibited because a court reduced the pending charge to a misdemeanor in October 2021, the Virginia State Police have said.

Jones last year was charged and convicted of a reckless driving and hit and run, and had a concealed weapons charge. He received suspended sentences for all of the offenses.

Assuming that’s an accurate summary of the germane facts, it sounds like the problem is not a need for new gun-control laws but a failure to punish violations of existing laws. One charge against Jones was reduced to a misdemeanor, and a concealed-weapons charge was reduced to a suspended sentence. There may be more than meets the eye to the judges’ decisions, but a surface-level read of events suggests that Virginia needs a change in judicial philosophy, not changes in the laws.

State Police are conducting a criminal investigation into the homicides, and an external investigator appointed by Attorney General Jason Miyares is looking into the lapses at UVa, but I’m not aware of anyone conducting an investigation into the failure of the judicial system.

The Joneses also faulted the University of Virginia’s failure to enforce its ban on guns on the grounds.

“[The university] could have removed him from campus well before this incident,” said the Joneses’ attorney Michael Haggard.

CNN summarizes the background as follows:

Before the shooting, Jones was the subject of a pending, gun-related case with the university’s judicial council, officials have said.

In that case, a student reported in September that Jones “made a comment to him about possessing a gun,” though that person did not see Jones possess a gun, university spokesperson Brian Coy has said. Jones “repeatedly refused to cooperate with University officials” and his case was escalated in October for further review and possible disciplinary action, Coy has said.

The school also was looking into Jones’ “failure to disclose” his misdemeanor conviction to school officials, Coy has said.

UVA sports blogger Jerry Ratcliffe has more detail than CNN about UVa’s role.

“The University of Virginia gave D’Sean his opportunity, but they made a mistake,” Haggard said. “One thing that [the family] want[s] the University of Virginia to cooperate with is not only acknowledging what happened here, but to be a leader for our colleges and universities who all have this problem going on, every single one.”

“We are exploring, looking at the University of Virginia’s responsibility here,” Haggard said. “Unfortunately, as you all know, due to federal preemption, right now, we’re limited in what we can do with a gun manufacturer or even this gun seller.”

Bacon’s bottom line: The Perry family has every reason to feel that the system failed their son. The failure occurred at two levels: the courts and the administrative machinery at UVa. The Perrys conspicuously wore UVa garb during the press conference, a sign that they still have positive feelings toward the university their son loved. But they have hired a lawyer, and the lawyer is “exploring” the university’s culpability.

The Perrys likely will have to await the outcome of the external investigation into what UVa officials knew about Jones and why they declined to act. Sadly, it likely could take months before they can find some peace.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

52 responses to “The Perry Family Lawyers Up”

  1. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Well if you watched the propaganda show from Charlottesville, ground zero for left wing loons and crazies. you would learn what they wanted and demanded. Take all, of the idiots like Shannon Watts and the fake Nam veteran Senator’s, ideas including what our drooling CIC think about firearms and that would cover it in a nutshell. Basically ambulance chasers wanting to sue firearm manufacturers and firearms sellers responsible for what evil people do. Can’t wait for alcohol alley ( 151) to be sued for selling booze to drunks and the democrats to be sued for providing fentanyl to the general public.

    1. …and for Ford to be sued when some idiot drives an F-150 into the crowd at a Christmas parade.

      1. James Kiser Avatar
        James Kiser

        was it Ford? no matter all the lawyers see goodies under the tree with these cases. Its like the Camp Lejeune water issue where the very day Congress voted to pay victims the lawyers already were rolling ads that night.

        1. I’m not sure it was a Ford, but the F-150 is the most popular pick-up truck of all time! 🙂

          I probably should have looked it up before posting, but you get the idea: Some people, possibly even a lot of people, think it is perfectly okay to make the manufacturer of a perfectly legal product pay ‘damages’ when a criminal uses the product in a criminal manner.

          1. James Kiser Avatar
            James Kiser

            That is why I made the comment about RT 151.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            There’s no such thing as a perfectly legal product. Any manufactured good or service provided may have been done negligently. It is the reason that there exists recalls of products. Misuse of a product whether by a criminal or other generally does not give rise to negligence.

          3. “Misuse of a product whether by a criminal or other generally does not give rise to negligence.”

            Except for guns.

            I’ve not seen any evidence that Remington was at fault for what happened at Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza did not become a mass murderer because of the way Remington marketed their product.

            “5 Disturbing Things We Learned Today About Sandy Hook Shooter Adam Lanza”

            https://abcnews.go.com/US/disturbing-things-learned-today-sandy-hook-shooter-adam/story?id=27087140

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The law suit by the Sandy Hook parents did not claim faulty manufacture of the weapon used by the shooter. It alleged fault by Remington for negligent marketing of firearms contrary to Connecticut law. The parents did not claim Remington made the shooter a mass murderer.

          5. And the PLCAA does not protect gun manufacturers from actual negligence in manufacturing.

            So tell me, in what way was the gun the UVA killer used defective?

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Never alleged the UVA shooter’s gun was defective. Negligence may be an issue with respect to the sale to the shooter and the U’s handling of the events. PLCAA does not encourage firearms manufacturers to adopt safety features voluntarily.

          7. PLCAA does not encourage firearms manufacturers to adopt safety features voluntarily.

            Okay. And so what? That’s not the government’s job anyway.

            I doubt there are more than a handful of congresspersons, one or two senators, and a half-dozen congressional staffers who know enough factual information about the design of firearms to even be able to intelligently discuss firearm safety features, never mind determine which safety features or new ideas for safety features are valuable and which are stupid, impossible and/or unworkable.

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Products liability did not originate with a government rule, law, or statute. It arose from the common law holding that individuals owe responsibility for their conduct not to cause injury to others and to exercise due care in their conduct. When or where manufacturers refuse or fail to use care in manufacturing, governments have stepped in especially when and where the products pose a risk to many individuals. Few would agree that the government ought not to maintain roads or install traffic signs or otherwise oversee public safety..

            If it were not the government’s job to regulate commerce for the safety of the public, then the PLCAA would not have been required. Negligence lawsuits would have forced manufacturers to adopt safety features.

  2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    It won’t take months.

  3. [Shooter Christopher] Jones was twice denied in his attempts to buy firearms…

    And attempting to buy a firearm when one is not legally allowed to buy or possess a firearm is a crime in and of itself. Why was the guy not prosecuted for those two distinct gun-related crimes?

    People need to stop asking for new gun laws until we can determine what happens to violent crime rates when all existing gun law are being consistently enforced.

  4. “Unfortunately, as you all know, due to federal preemption, right now, we’re limited in what we can do with a gun manufacturer or even this gun seller.” – the Joneses’ attorney, Michael Haggard

    Bullsh!t. If the gun manufacturer or the gun dealer broke a law they are 100% accountable. They can be charged with whatever crimes it is alleged they committed. No law exempts them from prosecution for crimes, and no law has ever done so. Nor has anyone ever proposed such a law.

    And, if neither the manufacturer nor the dealer broke any laws then why should you be permitted to “do” something with [to] them?

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Not bullshit. Common law negligence is not a statute but may provide a basis to sue in negligence. The parents of the Sandy Hook children sued the manufacturer for negligent marketing of firearms to youth. See MacPherson v Buick for origin of negligence in placing products into the market place. The attorney’s comment is likely related to the liability protection uniquely accorded to firearms manufacturers by Congress.

      1. I know what it is reference to – in fact I think every manufacturer of every product should be covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It should be converted into the PLCA. Being held liable and bankrupted when someone uses your product illegally is bullsh!t – and preventing that is the only thing the PLCAA does for firearms manufacturers.

        Finally, the UVA shooter is not a child so your reference to the Sandy Hook case is not even remotely relevant.

      2. No, it is bullsh!t. And if you had bothered to read my entire comment you would have ascertained that I am very aware of what the attorney was referring to. The guy was complaining that the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act won’t et him sue a gun manufacturer for simply manufacturing a gun. I consider that a good thing.

        In fact, I think every manufacturer of every product should be covered by the PLCAA. It should be converted into the PLCA. Being held liable and bankrupted when someone uses your legally manufactured product illegally is bullsh!t – and preventing that is the only thing the PLCAA does for firearms manufacturers.

        Finally, the UVA shooter is not a child so your reference to the Sandy Hook case is not even remotely relevant.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          The issue is not the age of the shooter but of the victims in Sandy Hook. Illegal or criminal use of a product is a defense to liability. In September 2020, a PA court found a firearm manufacturer liable for failure to include a common safety feature. The weapon was accidentally discharged killing a youth. The court held application of PLCAA contravened common law and the 10th Amendment.

          Common law suits encourage manufacturers to adopt safety features for the protection of the public. It’s the way seat belts and other auto safety devices arise.

          1. Well then where did “marketing guns to youths” enter into the Sandy Hook case – which, in my opinion, was driven by emotion, not rational legal analysis.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            It entered upon the filing of a law suit by parents citing a CT statute. The insurer settled the claim with parents for the maximum amount.

          3. Maximum amount being the amount of insurance coverage.

            The settlement had almost nothing to do with the facts of the case. It was settled to:

            Avoid more bad press.

            Avoid being in opposition to Sandy Hook families

            Avoid additional legal expenses

            Avoid an outcome driven by the most sympathetic plaintiff imaginable.

            It was settled for expediency.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            You may believe that and apply that reasoning to the verdict against Alex Jones. However, risk managers are generally rational. As Remington had declared bankruptcy, there was little motivation to preserve reputation or argue PLCAA. The claim by the parents survived following an appeal to CT’s highest court. Thus, some facts in the case were deemed sufficient.

          5. I am not a fan of Alex Jones and don’t much care what happens to him. His behavior was inexcusable and he is a genuinely despicable human in my book. There was no justification to insert that reference here.

            Remington was indeed already in bankruptcy, which was part of the goal. The insurance companies still had their own reputation to worry about.

            You said:
            “risk managers are generally rational”

            That’s true, yet 96 percent of torts are settled. That does not prove 96 percent have merit.

            Remington’s marketing may have been improper, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that the marketing had any connection whatsoever to the shooting.

            Improved marketing practices since that settlement have also not proven to have had an impact on mass shootings.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The theory of the law suit in negligence is that the negligent marketing placed the weapon in the hands of the shooter. Tort claims often involve foreseeability of the defendant’s conduct leading to injury. IOW, Remington’s conduct contributed to the shootings. Sometimes courts have fashioned results to apportion such liability among parties.

            If firearms manufacturers, as you state, have improved marketing practices, the the law suit will have achieved one purpose in gun safety. That is often the result when negligence is found: improved public safety.

            A 96 % settlement rate for tort claims is data I have not seen. Good business practice would prompt the insurer/risk manager to insist safety practices on the part of the client to avoid future settlement losses. Again, safety of the public benefits.

          7. James McCarthy:
            “The theory of the law suit in negligence is that the negligent marketing placed the weapon in the hands of the shooter. Tort claims often involve foreseeability of the defendant’s conduct leading to injury. IOW, Remington’s conduct contributed to the shootings.”

            That’s a pretty thin reed upon which the entire weight of an accusation such as this should rest.

            There’s no evidence Adam or his mother even saw the marketing to be influenced by it.

            Here’s the bottom line.

            Marketing didn’t put that gun in Adams hand. The Bushmaster belonged to his mother. She was the gun enthusiast. Adam stole the gun, shot his mother, and then went to the school.

            And if THAT gun wasn’t in his hands, then it would have been a different gun, but the same outcome. That’s essentially what the Department of Justice said was the result of the 10 year ban on assault weapons (AW). The assault weapon ban didn’t change behavior or lethality, the perpetrators just used different guns with a similar result.

            Summary:
            “Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence…”

            https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

          8. James McCarthy:
            “A 96 % settlement rate for tort claims is data I have not seen.”

            Unless I’m reading this incorrectly, that’s what it appears to be saying. It may vary from year to year, but my assumption is this is representative of typical patterns.

            “Data from jurisdictions that provided totals for both trial and non-trial tort dispositions in 2005 show that nearly 4% of all tort cases were disposed of by trial.”

            https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tbjtsc05.pdf

          9. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            OK. Assuming that 96% off all tort claims are settled before trial, at least in 2005, what’s the points? If the settlements are rational and accord with business practice, public safety is not compromised. Of course, the actual number of settlements, amounts involved, products involved – all are relevant. For sure some are nuisance claims but not 96%.

            A quick read of the cited source indicates that some of the cases involve real property, slander, and other non-manufacturing cases.

          10. Matt Adams Avatar

            “For sure some are nuisance claims but not 96%.”

            He never said that was the case, thus your argument is a strawman.

          11. Matt Adams Avatar

            “For sure some are nuisance claims but not 96%.”

            He never said that was the case, thus your argument is a strawman.

          12. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Excerpt from the Wiki entry on the Sandy Hook case.

            The families appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court. In March 2019, the court decided in a 4–3 vote to reverse parts of the trial court’s rulings and remand the case back to Bridgeport Superior Court for additional hearings. It ruled[198] that the families’ appeal to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, demonstrating that the gun manufacturers had used advertising that presented the weapons in an “unfair, unethical, or dangerous manner”, with Remington seeking to “expand the market for [its] assault weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers … to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies”, was not prohibited by PLCAA, and thus that the plaintiffs had sufficient standing to argue their case at trial court. It also ruled that the plaintiffs can subpoena internal documents on how gun companies have marketed the AR-15.[199] Remington asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the state court ruling, but in November 2019 the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, allowing the families’ suit to proceed.[200]

            On July 26, 2021, a judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit. In court documents the next day, Remington offered $33 million to be shared by the nine families.[201] On February 15, 2022, Remington agreed to settle for $73 million,[

          13. If Remington violated the law in CT with respect to marketing, they should suffer the penalty the law prescribes, and be liable for direct impact.

            You have still failed to show any connection between Remington’s marketing and the Sandy Hook shooting.

          14. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Be advised that I did not participate in the suit. I can only report on what I read. The CT appellate court decided that the merits of the parents’ claim of negligent marketing was sufficient for a jury to hear.

          15. “Be advised that I did not participate in the suit.”

            I understand that.

            Thanks for your willingness to engage in civil discourse. I appreciated your input from the legal perspective.

          16. Matt Adams Avatar

            Don’t bother, you’re bashing your head against the wall.

            What he’s purporting wasn’t even the grounds in the Sandy Hook case.

          17. “where did marketing guns to youths” enter into the Sandy Hook case – which, in my
            opinion, was driven by emotion, not rational legal analysis.”

            Yeah, bizarre verdict. The rifle was bought by the Mom. She knew her kid was crazy, and from the events it may have been familial. She gave him access to the gun. It is somehow fitting he shot her first, but tragic that he didn’t end it there by committing suicide before going to the school instead of after.

            You are right, marketing had nothing to do with what happened.

            There is a good study of all mass shootings in the US since the ’60s that show they are all suicidal events. It ain’t marketing, it’s severe mental illness.

            https://www.theviolenceprojectbook.com/

          18. “Yeah, bizarre verdict.”

            Clarification.

            Remington had filed for bankruptcy and the insurance companies decided to settle rather than go to trial and have to cross examine those representing grieving family members of those who were killed.

            My guess is that the top level executives of the insurance companies decided to:

            “Make this go away!”

            There was no verdict.

            Had it gone to trial and a verdict issued, I believe survivors and grieving family members would have testified about their loss during the penalty phase, had the verdict gone against Remington.

  5. [Shooter Christopher] Jones was twice denied in his attempts to buy firearms…

    And attempting to buy a firearm when one is not legally allowed to buy or possess a firearm is a crime in and of itself – a Class 5 felony, I think. Why was the guy not prosecuted for those two distinct gun-related crimes? Conviction on either of those could have made him ineligible to buy a gun for a very long time (possibly the rest of his life).

    People need to stop asking for new gun laws until we can determine what happens to violent crime rates when all existing gun law are being consistently enforced.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      That would require them to know what firearms laws are on the books, they do not.

      1. Good point.

    2. I support most of Virginia’s gun laws, but certainly not all. (I do, however, obey them)

      I was against the background check law that recently went into effect in Virginia. My experience with firearms over the last 50 years told me it will have almost no effect on criminals, but could easily get innocent people in serious trouble.

      I know for a fact that a widow in her 80s recently sold firearms to a friend without going through an FFL. That’s a felony for the person doing the selling. That’s exactly what I knew would happen.

    3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      It is a Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone under 18 to possess a handgun or assault weapon (there are exemptions for possession on family property, etc..) I can’t find any statute that makes it an offense for someone under 18 to attempt to purchase a firearm. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.7/

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        If he attempted to buy a firearm and knew that he was forbidden to make that purchase. He lied on a federal form and committed a felony.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          That is not necessarily the case. The law here is confusing. It is legal in Virginia for a person 18 years old or older to purchase a handgun. However, federal law prohibits a licensed dealer from selling a handgun to anyone under 21. So, knowing that he could legally purchase and possess a handgun under Virginia law, but not knowing about the federal twist, Jones could have gone into the gun shop, picked out a gun, filled out the form truthfully, and then be told by the owner of the shop that he (the owner) could not sell it to him because he was under 21. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/14/18-to-20-year-olds-have-a-right-to-buy-handguns/

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            If he was prohibited for any reason from owning a firearm, knew it and he attempted such he lied on both a federal and Virginia state form. That is a felony.

            As when you purchase a firearm from an FFL you fill out both a state and federal form. ATF 4473

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            He was not prohibited from owning or purchasing a firearm. The dealer was prohibited by federal law from selling it to him. It is not an unreasonable assumption that he was unaware of that provision.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            He was denied his second attempt because of a pending charge that ultimately was plead down. The form you fill out and sign states and I quote:

            “d. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more
            than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military
            Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?”

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download&ved=2ahUKEwjxlo3euv_7AhU3GFkFHUasDaEQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2wqSjpoV4XgKTrkaDYsBId

            There are yes or no questions with boxes.If he answered no to that, while he was. He has falsified a federal form and therefore committed a felony. That question is also on the VA form, with additional questions regarding what was introduced in the red flag laws.

            If you’re pending charge it’s a rather same assumption you know it.

          4. Declines are not often prosecuted. The feeling apparently being that by declining a purchase for someone who is prohibited that the law has worked as intended. It has, and as you and Dick note someone can honestly fill out the form and still fail the background check.

            The felony of knowingly falsely answering questions on the forms is a different issue and is also not often prosecuted, although I would be happy to see Hunter Biden get popped for his lies about drug use.

            It seems highly likely that a great many applicants have falsified their answers about drug use even with the legalization of pot in many places including Virginia. It is still a Federal offense.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar

            I agree with all your statements and that things are seldom prosecuted. There in lies the error of saying we need more firearms laws, because this is a direct example of the current ones not being enforced or followed.

            It’s also amazes me when people whom clearly have never purchased a firearm in their life want to argue about the process with someone who has.

          6. Seems with Jones the background check worked as intended. He failed twice, once because of age and again due to the felony charge.

            Those conditions cleared, one with the passage of time and the other due to a reduction in the charge to a misdemeanor. We all have imperfections, the laws do not require sainthood and accommodate minor sins.

            It appears that UVa dropped the ball. The TAT failed to act effectively. I also expect his Dad is heartbroken he did not help his son get mental health treatment.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar

            True, the system worked minus his plea down to a misdemeanor. UVA most certainly dropped the ball, as this has all the earmarks of a red flag violation. I am not a fan of that law, but if it were followed this would’ve been prevented.

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The judicial system did not fail the family. Someone convicted of a felony cannot legally purchase a firearm. Two of the offenses for which Jones received a suspended sentence were reckless driving and hit & run. Both are misdemeanors. Having a suspended sentence had nothing to do with his ability to purchase a firearm. He was convicted, regardless of the suspended sentence.

    It is not clear what the original felony charge was that was reduced to a misdemeanor, but it certainly is not unusual for a felony charge to be reduced to a misdemeanor when the case gets to the judge.

Leave a Reply