One social media ad featured a photo of a little boy sitting cross-legged and holding a rifle in his lap with this line from the Bible: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Another displayed a rifle next to video game controllers and the message: “Game time!” Others referenced Call of Duty, the hugely popular first-person shooter video game.
A lawsuit against Georgia gunmaker Daniel Defense accuses the company of using those ads and others like it to “groom” underage customers before it sold one of its semi-automatic rifles to Salvador Ramos.
A Call of Duty gamer, the 18-year-old used that rifle in one of the worst mass shootings in history. Two years ago, law enforcement officers fatally shot him after he had already killed 19 fourth-graders and two teachers in their classrooms in Uvalde, Texas.
Filed in May by the families of 17 of the children who were killed and two who survived, the complaint also alleges Daniel Defense did not using age-verification measures that would dissuade underage people from browsing firearms on its website, signing up for an account or adding guns to their virtual carts. Additionally, the lawsuit accuses the company of illegally seeking to sell the rifle to Ramos before he turned 18.
An amended version of the complaint filed this month asks for a jury trial but does not specify the damages the plaintiffs are seeking, other than saying the amount is above $75,000.
Daniel Defense and its lawyers did not respond to repeated requests for comment. But in court papers, the company denied the allegations and asked a judge to dismiss the case.
The company is now differing with the Uvalde families over where the case should be decided. Daniel Defense wants to keep the case in federal court where it was moved this summer, while the plaintiffs want to send it back to the Texas state court where they originally filed their complaint.
Based in Bryan County near Savannah, Daniel Defense is also arguing it is shielded from the lawsuit by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005. Before signing the measure, then-President George W. Bush said it would “further our efforts to stem frivolous lawsuits.”
The Uvalde lawsuit is the latest attempt by gun violence victims to maneuver around that law by arguing gunmakers marketed their weapons illegally.
Josh Koskoff, a lawyer representing the Uvalde families, used a similar strategy in suing Remington, which made the AR-15-style rifle used in the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre. Two years ago, the families of nine Sandy Hook victims settled their lawsuit against Remington for $73 million.
Credit: From public court records
Credit: From public court records
At issue in the Uvalde case, according to the lawsuit, is an email Daniel Defense sent Ramos when he was 17, reminding him he had put one of the company’s DDM4v7 rifles in his virtual cart online.
“Hi Salvador, are you on the fence?” the email said, according to the lawsuit. “Your DDM4v7 is ready in your cart!” The email contained a “Return to Cart” button linked to Ramos’ shopping cart on the company’s website so that he could complete his purchase.
Daniel Defense denied this was an offer to sell, adding the plaintiffs have not presented evidence showing the company knew Ramos was 17 at the time or that he carried out the mass shooting because of the email. The company also pointed out Ramos didn’t purchase the rifle until he turned 18.
“Worse yet, plaintiffs’ theory of liability is a thinly veiled attempt to restrict the pro-Second Amendment and patriotic messages and viewpoint that Daniel Defense promotes,” the company said in court papers. “The First Amendment, however, flatly forbids such content- and viewpoint-based restrictions of speech.”
Koskoff, the attorney representing the Uvalde families, called that argument irrelevant.
“This case has nothing to do with the First or Second Amendment. Period,” he said.
Koskoff is representing Uvalde families in a separate lawsuit alleging negligence by Activision, which publishes Call of Duty. In a statement, Activision called the mass shooting in Uvalde “horrendous and heartbreaking” but said “decades of academic and scientific research continue to show that there is no connection between video games and shootings.”
Five years before the massacre in Uvalde, Daniel Defense drew scrutiny. Four of the company’s rifles were found in the arsenal of Stephen Paddock, the man who fatally shot 60 people at an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas in 2017, according to a 2022 report by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
That same report says Daniel Defense’s revenue from AR-15-style rifles tripled from $40 million in 2019 to more than $120 million in 2021. While 90% of its sales are made to civilian consumers, according to the report, the company’s marketing has heavily emphasized its weapons’ tactical uses and featured references to the military and appeals to masculinity.
The Uvalde families’ lawsuit targets such ads, alleging they are “highly attractive to young men under the age of eighteen, especially aggrieved and vulnerable young men who will see this advertising as validating their anger, acknowledging their insecurities, and offering a way out by committing unspeakable violence with a Daniel Defense AR-15.”
Daniel Defense took down some of its ads after the mass shooting in Uvalde, including the one featuring the boy holding the rifle, according to the lawsuit. But the gunmaker’s Instagram account still features other provocative ads. Among them is one that displays the view through a rifle scope aimed at the windshield of a car parked on what appears to be a busy city street. Posted in March 2022, the ads says the gun is “Rooftop ready, even at midnight.”
Meanwhile, a similar lawsuit has been pending against Daniel Defense in the same federal court in Texas since 2022. Filed by the family of one of the students killed in the shooting, the case is represented by attorneys from Everytown Law, which advocates for gun safety.
Observers on different sides of the gun control debate are closely watching the pair of lawsuits against Daniel Defense. Among them is Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
“We believe that the lawsuits are without any merit legally and that they should be and will be dismissed based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” he said, adding such lawsuits are attempts to “silence protected First Amendment speech about Second Amendment activities.”
Robert Cross, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s counsel for trial and appellate litigation, offered a different view.
“The First Amendment does not confer a right to promote the unlawful use of dangerous products,” said Cross, whose organization supports repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. “Nor does it confer a right to deceptively advertise dangerous products.”
Credit: From public court records
Credit: From public court records
About the Author
