Lawsuit against Congressman. This lawsuit probably should have not reached a jury and probably should have been dismissed based on motions before anyone ever took a witness stand or testified. The key elements of the lawsuit here seem to be that (a) the Congressman committed a negligent act by not banning assault weapons, (b) that the Congressman's act was the proximate cause of the death of an individual (more or less, that the Congressman's act so directly caused the death that it could be considered legally responsible), (c) that the donor had standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of that individual, and (d) that the Congressman did not have immunity for his act.

First and foremost, a court probably could and should rule that there is no way that the Congressman's act could be considered the proximate cause of a death when the illegal act of a criminal some time afterwards and in a different location is more properly seen as the proximate cause. After all, if this Congressman could get sued for this act, why not everyone in Congress? Why notthe President? It is highly likely that a court would dismiss this lawsuit against as no reasonable jury could find that the congressman was legally responsible for causing the individual plaintiffs' injury "without resorting to 'wild speculation.'"

Moreover, Denny, Shirley and Denise probably should look into whether the donor has standing to bring the lawsuit. The parents or immediate survivors of a deceased person are the ones who generally have the right to bring a lawsuit based on that person's behalf; courts can dismiss lawsuits when they are brought by people without sufficient closeness to the case. Why should this uncle be allowed to seek damages for this death if the people most affected by it do not want to sue?