By Lee Williams
SAF Investigative Journalism Project
According to the lawsuit Cocanour et al. v. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., which was filed late last month, the NSSF—the trade association for the firearms industry—has “disregarded the privacy of firearms buyers by gathering their personal info into a database for political purposes.”
However, according to anyone with even the smallest shred of common sense, the NSSF did nothing wrong.
The lawsuit was filed Sept. 22 by Riley Breakell, an attorney for Motley Rice, LLC, which has offices in eight states. It’s her first real legal gig. Breakell only graduated from law school two years ago. Prior to joining her current firm, she interned for the public defender in Connecticut and worked as a legal assistant for Catholic Charities in Portland, Oregon.
According to her bio, Breakell has active lawsuits against YouTube, over alleged mental health harm; Instagram, which she claims is addictive; and Facebook, which she claimed is “designed to encourage compulsive use and addictive behavior.
Breakell is joined by Benjamin Gould, a Seattle attorney working for Keller Rohrback, LLP.
In July, Gould successfully defended a Washington statute, which allows the courts to force individuals subject to civil protection orders to turn over their firearms to law enforcement. His firm even sued Glock recently over auto sears on behalf of the City of Seattle, which is still pending.
The traditional media celebrated the attorneys’ lawsuit with multiple stories. ProPublica even claimed the new lawsuit “closely mirrors the findings of a ProPublica investigation that detailed a decades-long secret program operated by the gun industry’s largest trade group.”\
However, no one from the traditional media appears to have read the 24-page complaint. If they had, they might have realized this case will likely go nowhere, regardless of what it closely mirrors.
The two plaintiffs are Daniel Cocanour, of Oklahoma, and Dale Rimkus, of Illinois, who claim their rights were violated after they filled out warranty cards after buying firearms.
The suit claims that the NSSF “received Plaintiffs’ personal information and used it for political purposes—and benefited from doing so.” It also states that the NSSF never paid the plaintiffs for the use of their information.
“The failure of NSSF to pay Plaintiffs for use of their personal information was to Plaintiffs’ detriment,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit distills down the plaintiffs’ complaints into only one count: Unjust enrichment.
That’s it. That’s what this lawsuit is all about.
The lawsuit cites no law—federal, state or local—that says it is illegal or even wrong for the NSSF to receive warranty card information. It’s a totally normal marketing activity, which is not unique to the NSSF or the firearm industry. It’s the same thing a firm does whether it’s selling guns, toothpaste or lawn mowers.
This is simply lawfare, pure and simple. The mainstream media will gush greatly when lawsuits like this are filed, but none of them will move an inch of type when the court tosses it out.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
