(August 1, 2001) A few years ago 13 year old John Price died when he and a gang of other kids entered a home not their own and took property not their own. One item was a gun, which a 9 year old in the gang pointed at Price as he pulled the trigger. Since then John's mother, Carol, joined HCI's state affiliate (called MAHA) as its President. The ghouls at MAHA delight in parading a mom who can cry on demand, then whisk her away before anyone can ask hard questions like: Did you teach your son not to enter someone else's home without permission? There's a reason existing state law on child access to guns was not invoked … it did not apply. No teen willing to enter someone else's home is likely to care about safety training or loaded chamber indicators. But those facts do not come out when Price testifies in our capital for every garbage gun control proposal that her handlers tell her to support.

Well, that's the old news you already knew. Now we learn the Prices have filed suit against Ruger, maker of the gun their son's gang took, plus the gun's owner, the dealer who sold the gun and anyone else with a deep pocket. After years of defiantly telling committees they wanted only to make a difference, now they just want the cash.

Take parents desperate not to confront their own role in a child's death, put them in the clutches of exploitative control-mongers, and this is the mess you get. But you need to know the rest of the story too …

The Prices filed suit on behalf of the Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.) As the Brady Bunch lawyers well know, Maryland law limits the liability of a manufacturer like Ruger. Article 27, Section 36I, was put on the books at the same time the Handgun Roster Board came into being, because it was a deal: in 1988, gun lobbyists accepted the Roster Board in return for a legislative overthrow of the so-called 'Kelly decision' (an early 80's court case that said gun manufacturers could be liable for how their products are used.) It was classic Maryland politics: everyone got something. Liberals got a so-called "Saturday night special" ban. Manufacturers of "legitimate" guns got protection from liability. We got screwed.

So if Ruger can't be held liable, why file a case? Media attention. If a circuit court judge summarily dismisses the case against Ruger (as he should) then the Brady ghouls get to parade out their mom-who-cries-on-demand, to sob how 'defective' laws stop them from getting justice. In political circles it's called building issue constituency, and it tells us what kind of legislative assaults to expect next session. Obviously they already have legislators lined up to remove 36I from the books. Don't think for a second they intend to remove the Roster Board at the same time. So much for a deal being a deal, not that we were a party to any of it.