• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court rules Sandy Hook families can sue gunmaker over rifle used in shooting

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
68,960
Reaction score
22,530
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From ABC News

Court rules Sandy Hook families can sue gunmaker over rifle used in shooting
​

Connecticut’s highest court has cleared the way for families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to sue over the marketing of the semiautomatic rifle Adam Lanza used to kill.

The families argued that the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the weapon negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.

The lawsuit, which lists Bushmaster Firearms International as the defendant, has already overcome years worth of legal hurdles after first being filed more than four years ago, more than two years after the shooting at the Connecticut school left 26 people dead.

The families released a statement saying that they are "grateful that our state’s Supreme Court has rejected the gun industry’s bid for complete immunity, not only from the consequences of their reckless conduct but also from the truth-seeking discovery process," said attorney Josh Koskoff of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder.

COMMENT:-

Personal injury lawyers throughout the nation are rejoicing over this decision. Now when some penniless drunk crashes a stolen car into someone, the lawyers will be able to sue the car companies because they didn't manufacture a car that could not be operated by a drunk.

PS - Something that LOOKS LIKE a "Porsche" but which does not do what a "Porsche" does is NOT a "Porsche" and something that LOOKS LIKE an "assault rifle" but which does not do what an "assault rifle" does is NOT an "assault rifle".
​
 
Major shame on Connecticut's highest court for clearly ignoring federal law that will prohibit this lawsuit.
The federal law known as PLCAA, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted for exactly
what is happening with this case. The manufacturer and the sellers of the firearm used that day are clearly
not legally responsible for his crimes and harms that he caused.”

The shooter in this case shot and killed his mother and then stole the weapons from her that he used in the school
shooting. This case will end up before the Supreme Court and be overruled as it should be.
 
I don't believe that's what this ruling will allow. Unless the car company is advertising and sending out material that says buy my car because it drives best while drunk.
I think the ruling is about advertising and the parents really want to see in discovery what the gunmakers were saying after the many mass shootings.
 

I have a problem with this. Does this mean that, if a terrorist drives a car into a crowd of people, and I happen to be in that crowd, I can sue Ford?
 
rom the plaintiffs' position:

"The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) through
the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have
become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was
negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users"

404 - File or directory not found.

It's not a "military grade weapon". It's perfectly suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation (else with 15 million of them, there'd be a lot more murders with them), these are other similar semiautomatic weapons are still not the weapon of choice for mass shootings (that would be a handgun) and if I were counsel for the defendants, I would address the claim "risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits" with the fact that the federal government, on multiple occasions, sold hundreds of thousand of actual military grade, semiautomatic, magazine fed intermediate caliber to the civilian market, and that actions taken by private firms that exactly replicate the lawful actions of the federal government cannot be grounds for liability.
 
danarhea said:
I have a problem with this. Does this mean that, if a terrorist drives a car into a crowd of people, and I happen to be in that crowd, I can sue Ford?
Click to expand...

Only if Ford advertises how quickly and efficiently the car can be used to mow people down.
 
danarhea said:
I have a problem with this. Does this mean that, if a terrorist drives a car into a crowd of people, and I happen to be in that crowd, I can sue Ford?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Not only that, but you can also sue the makers of any parts or raw materials that went into the production of the car.

Now I'm not sure if you can sue the banks that "facilitated" the commercial transactions that made it possible for Ford to purchase the parts or raw materials that went into the production of the car, but why not toss them into the mix as well - after all, they've got even more money than Ford does.
 

There is a concept in Canadian law known as "frivolous and vexatious law suits". The Canadian courts have no difficulty in simply tossing out the whole action if a part of it is "frivolous and vexatious" AND the side putting forward those claims does not amend the action to remove them.

Since the definition of "assault weapon" includes "capable of fully automatic fire", any claim that a weapon that is NOT "capable of fully automatic fire" is an "assault weapon" falls into the "frivolous and vexatious" category.
 

That will be a stretch, unless firearm manufacturers are in any way advertising the use of firearms in this kind of scenario; which I'm pretty sure is not the case.
 

Damn right. You just gave me a great idea. A couple of years ago, I got food poisoning from a Mexican restaurant. So now I am going to sue Mexico. I want Guadalajara.
 
danarhea said:
Damn right. You just gave me a great idea. A couple of years ago, I got food poisoning from a Mexican restaurant. So now I am going to sue Mexico. I want Guadalajara.
Click to expand...

You are thinking small.

Without Spain there would be no Mexico. Why not shoot for the Spanish Rivera?
 

Don't forget the people who made the ammunition... I mean, gasoline... that was used to fuel the car.
 
As if the gunmaker knew that Lanza would do the shooting.
 
Masterhawk said:
As if the gunmaker knew that Lanza would do the shooting.
Click to expand...

It's enough that the gun maker knew that the gun would shoot.

The only way that those evil gun makers can protect themselves is if they IMMEDIATELY stop making guns that are capable of shooting.

Of course, concentrating on the gun makes it so much easier to ignore the loser who does the killings, WHY they feel that killing people in order to "make a statement" about the fact that they "have issues", and WHAT factors in society contributed to the reasons why they thought that killing people in order to "make a statement" about the fact that they "have issues" was an acceptable course of action - isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…