- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 8,363
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
SANDY HOOK LAWSUIT: JUDGE RULES AGAINST GUN COMPANIES
In a major blow to gun companies, a judge in Connecticut on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 10 families affected by the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School against the maker of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the shooting.
The three gun companies named in the case had argued for the lawsuit to be dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), or PLCAA for short. It’s a 2005 federal law that provides gun businesses general immunity from civil lawsuits. Connecticut State Judge Barbara Bellis rejected the gun companies’ motion.
The families are suing the maker, distributor and seller of the rifle, which the gunman used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, in less than five minutes on December 14, 2012. They argue the rifle shouldn’t have been entrusted to the general public because it is a military-style assault weapon that is unsuited for civilian use. They say the gun companies knew—or should have known—about the high risks posed by the weapon, including the ability for a shooter to use it to inflict maximum casualties and serious injury.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065770608 said:I guess the judge didn't read the part about the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not getting it. What has this to do with the 2nd Amendment?
Technically nobody is infringing on the 2nd with this case, it's just a civil lawsuit between the public and a private company. Even if the parents win, it can't really be used as precedent to go after assault rifles in general. All it could really hope to accomplish, apart from reparations, is making the company reconsider its own consumer policy.
It could create precedent for other gun manufacturers to be sued in the future though.
Wouldn't it be ironic if America's own tort system is what determines the fate of gun control instead of the government? Hard to get certain guns if a company won't sell them to you because they're too afraid of being sued.
If you can sue...
If you can sue gun manufacturers whenever you feel the victim of gun violence you can attempt to cut the ability to own guns off at it source.
Wow, talk about a dangerous slippy slope. I hope she realizes she's a retard, because she's a gold medal winner.
Let's see three logical fallacies in two short sentences. Are you shooting for a record?
So you would deny citizens the right to seek redress through the courts because it might mean you cannot buy an AR15...smart.
So you would deny citizens the right to seek redress through the courts because it might mean you cannot buy an AR15...smart.
Technically nobody is infringing on the 2nd with this case, it's just a civil lawsuit between the public and a private company. Even if the parents win, it can't really be used as precedent to go after assault rifles in general. All it could really hope to accomplish, apart from reparations, is making the company reconsider its own consumer policy.
It could create precedent for other gun manufacturers to be sued in the future though.
Wouldn't it be ironic if America's own tort system is what determines the fate of gun control instead of the government? Hard to get certain guns if a company won't sell them to you because they're too afraid of being sued.
I wonder how certain people will try to frame this as a 2nd ammendment issue?
good, down with the NRA and their child murdering ways!
i don't see how anyone can be against abortion and support this "right" to easily massacre 20 children btw
So you would deny citizens the right to seek redress through the courts because it might mean you cannot buy an AR15...smart.
They shouldn't be denied any rights, but the situation should be that when they went to an attorney, the attorney would tell them to forget it because there is no chance of succeeding. But, anything goes with our courts today. Spilled hot coffee on yourself? Sue the corporation that you asked to give you a hot coffee, they forgot to figure out that you would spill it.
The courts are now full of hack judges that are happy to let litigation be used to enrich lawyers.
Not getting it. What has this to do with the 2nd Amendment?
This will end up before the Supreme Court. I wonder how they will rule
good, down with the NRA and their child murdering ways!
i don't see how anyone can be against abortion and support this "right" to easily massacre 20 children btw
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?