Las night on FOX news' Hanity and Comes (spelling?) there was someone from the Brady Campaigne talking about the lawsuit against Bushmaster and the Bullseye Gun Store. He was crying negligence by the store for allowing the Rifle to be stolen, (as well as 230 other firearms reported lost within the last 2 years), and for Bushmaster for selling to a dealer with such an irresponsible record. He Kept referring to the weapon as a "High firepower assult weapon" Notice he didn't say a "high-power" assult weapon. Those words were very carefully constructed to not be entirely un accurate, but emotionally misleading b/c though 5.56 is not a high power cartrige, an ar15 can rightly be called alot of firepower, especially with the "40 round magazines and accessories called the "ultimate sniper grip"" Now I will say that grossly missing from the debate was someone from the NRA or whatever. The conservative woman sitting for Sean Hannity was criticizing the group for suing lawful companies and products, and infact so was Comes who has some strains of belief in personal responsability, but neither of them quite had enough knowledge of firearms or how firearms commerce operates to really shut this guy down. Now, this Brady guy stated that the store was responsible for allowing the gun to be supposedly shoplifted from the premises and then not reported as having been stolen. I think that that litagation may have some merit b/c every gun store I have been in has the weapons behind a couter on a rack. I can't imagine how one could grab one and run off w/o the store knowing it. I also have difficulty understanding how they could not know for months that the Rifle was missing until the ATF traced it back to them. Now the grounds for the trial against BM is not at all valid. He said that BM has a responsibility to be aware of whether or not any dealer that they dare sell "high firepower assult rifles" has any history of fishy buisness. He says that since this buisness has reported 230 firarms missing to the ATF in the last two years, BM should have somehow found out about it and refused to sell anything to the dealer. This is stupid for several reasons. First of all, everytime BM recieves a copy of an FFL liscence from a dealer, they verify that the FFL is real and non-expired or revoked with the ATF b4 they ship to the dealer, and I'm not even sure they are legally required to do this. Secondly, the whole reason we have the ATF is so that they can be the watchdog of the industry and can investigate and penalize people who don't follow the law. If this crap about 230 firearms being reported missing to the ATF in the last two years all within the reqired 48 hour period is true, and these were all somehow seperate incidences that would be like a phone call to the ATF every third day saying something like "uhh, I lost another firearm ATF, so now you can note that in your records so that when you do a firearms trace, you will not be able to locate a purchaser..." I have a hard time that the ATF would allow a dealer to maintain his FFL who would do something like that. But if that was the way it was, they should be suing the ATF, not BM for negligenece. If the ATF thought that the dealer was trustworthy to have his FFL, then BM doesn't have any reason, and maybe any right, to deny sales to the dealer. Sue the ATF Still, I imagine that there was somesort of break in or something, or a shipment that was stolen where several firearms were stolen at once to make up for the bulk of that 230 number. Conclusion: Sue the ATF and the snipers, and investigate the store more.