Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies [W:435]

[LaMidRighter]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

We agree that these suits have no merit and should be dismissed outright. We disagree on who's to blame for bringing them. That's cool. At the end of the day we're on the same side of the fence.

No doubt we're on the same side. I guess the reason I want the SH families brought into the countersuit is because there is a malicious component coming from them, they have to know by now somewhere that they are bringing a frivolous lawsuit and hearing some of their testimony it is obvious some of them are looking for payback. Someone needs to be made an example to right the ship, people expect attorneys and judges to get nailed eventually but they are only one part of the equation, frivolous suits need to hurt so bad that the next people in line step back and analyze their standing.

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

It's fascinating that suits of this nature are still seen as having legitimacy.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

It's fascinating that suits of this nature are still seen as having legitimacy.

We have been needing to adopt the "loser pays" system seen in the UK and many European countries. Frivolous lawsuits have very little consequence to the plaintiff and get settled because whether a company wins or loses it still costs them money, if a suit is found to be meritless and a plaintiff has to foot the bill it would go very far to end the tort abuse in our country. As well, it's about time to start pulling law licenses for attorneys who frequently abuse the court system.

 

[Moot]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

so is being armed and unlike gay marriage-there is a much stronger argument that the ninth amendment should be so interpreted

This is a good article on rights, imo. Especially the section ...7.2 Critiques of the Language of Rights.....

"...Since rights assertions suggest conclusive reasons, people can be tempted to assert rights when they want to end a discussion instead of continuing it. One plays a right as a trump card when one has run out of arguments. Similarly, the ready availability of rights language may lead parties initially at odds with each other toward confrontation instead of negotiation, as each side escalates an arms-race of rights assertions that can only be resolved by a superior authority like a court....

Another deleterious consequence of rights talk that Glendon picks out is its tendency to move the moral focus toward persons as rightholders, instead of toward persons as bearers of responsibilities...."

It seems no accident that America, “the land of rights,” is also the land of litigation....

Another deleterious consequence of rights talk that Glendon picks out is its tendency to move the moral focus toward persons as rightholders, instead of toward persons as bearers of responsibilities...."

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


That makes a good segue back to the right's of the Sandy Hook parents to litigate and sue the gun manufacturers for negligence. Wasn't there a similar lawsuit against tobacco companies?

Tobacco Companies Settle Smoking Lawsuits for $100 Million - NBC News

Is it constitutional for congress to pass a law that only protects one industry (gun manufacturers) from lawsuits and not others? I'm not aware of any other industry that has such a federal protection law from lawsuits...are you?

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

We have been needing to adopt the "loser pays" system seen in the UK and many European countries. Frivolous lawsuits have very little consequence to the plaintiff and get settled because whether a company wins or loses it still costs them money, if a suit is found to be meritless and a plaintiff has to foot the bill it would go very far to end the tort abuse in our country. As well, it's about time to start pulling law licenses for attorneys who frequently abuse the court system.

I don't really like "loser pays," myself, but the rationale for this case is beyond the pale foolish.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

I don't really like "loser pays," myself, but the rationale for this case is beyond the pale foolish.

Granted it is not a perfect system. I think a middle ground could be reached to exempt suits brought in good faith, maybe even a system that only punishes meritless lawsuits and then activating that type of system as a consequence would work. Either way tort reform in this country is long overdue.

 

[braindrain]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

This is a good article on rights, imo. Especially the section ...7.2 Critiques of the Language of Rights.....


Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


That makes a good segue back to the right's of the Sandy Hook parents to litigate and sue the gun manufacturers for negligence. Wasn't there a similar lawsuit against tobacco companies?

Tobacco Companies Settle Smoking Lawsuits for $100 Million - NBC News

Is it constitutional for congress to pass a law that only protects one industry (gun manufacturers) from lawsuits and not others? I'm not aware of any other industry that has such a federal protection law from lawsuits...are you?

Do you know of any other industry that has been sued for someone who wasn't even the purchaser of that product misusing that product. Keep in mind that the product they make has been deemed fully legal to own both by the court system as well as the government agency that is tasked with regulating that product.

When people start suing Chevy because someone misuses their corvette and kills someone. Otherwise I thinks it's pretty easy to see why gun manufacturers need such protections mainly because people like yourself want to find away around the 2nd and don't mind using whatever excuse they can make up such as bogus lawsuits.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

This is a good article on rights, imo. Especially the section ...7.2 Critiques of the Language of Rights.....


Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


That makes a good segue back to the right's of the Sandy Hook parents to litigate and sue the gun manufacturers for negligence. Wasn't there a similar lawsuit against tobacco companies?

Tobacco Companies Settle Smoking Lawsuits for $100 Million - NBC News

Is it constitutional for congress to pass a law that only protects one industry (gun manufacturers) from lawsuits and not others? I'm not aware of any other industry that has such a federal protection law from lawsuits...are you?

The difference with tobacco:
1) The product directly harms the consumer
2) This product causes physical addiction, further harming the consumer
3) Substantial effort went into hiding this harm from the population

 

[Erod]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

And this stupid bimbo is a judge?

Think about that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

The EPA is a regulatory agency and was granted the power to regulate the environmental laws passed by congress....

Here's one of those laws...

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-endangered-species-act

you sort of missed that point

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

This is a good article on rights, imo. Especially the section ...7.2 Critiques of the Language of Rights.....


Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


That makes a good segue back to the right's of the Sandy Hook parents to litigate and sue the gun manufacturers for negligence. Wasn't there a similar lawsuit against tobacco companies?

Tobacco Companies Settle Smoking Lawsuits for $100 Million - NBC News

Is it constitutional for congress to pass a law that only protects one industry (gun manufacturers) from lawsuits and not others? I'm not aware of any other industry that has such a federal protection law from lawsuits...are you?

silly comparison

the state and federal governments actively supply employees with these type rifles.

and you forget about the second amendment

and as guns in circulation have increased-crime has gone down

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

No, I'm saying that hunting and target practice are not protected by the second amendment. Iow, the government is not restricted from regulating such activities.

The fed doesn't have that power. That is a state power. Furthermore, the second protects the ownership of firearms. The reason? Because militias often furnished their own.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

The fed doesn't have that power. That is a state power. Furthermore, the second protects the ownership of firearms. The reason? Because militias often furnished their own.

plus under the ninth and tenth, the federal government cannot violate that right nor has the power to do so

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Hunting is not an absolute natural right and can be regulated or even banned if that is what the people want. You don't need to hunt to survive in this modern world.

Nobody said anything about hunting man. The point I'm making is that the second amendment gives us ownership of arms. Currently I have one hunting weapon in my apartment that I do not use (single shot 20 gauge). It is a home defense gun. It cannot be regulated because it IS a hunting weapon. My CHOICE OF WEAPON can be regulated whilst hunting (3 shell max on migratory, and so on). But that has nothing to do with ownership of a firearm.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

The difference with tobacco:
1) The product directly harms the consumer
2) This product causes physical addiction, further harming the consumer
3) Substantial effort went into hiding this harm from the population

I disagree with the tobacco lawsuits in general, but you are absolutely right here. Those lawsuits are an apples to oranges comparison at best. Firearms do not kill on their own, it takes either negligence or an intentional action but they are user dependent. When tobacco is used properly, and I am a former heavy smoker, it is still dangerous and a huge risk.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

I disagree with the tobacco lawsuits in general, but you are absolutely right here. Those lawsuits are an apples to oranges comparison at best. Firearms do not kill on their own, it takes either negligence or an intentional action but they are user dependent. When tobacco is used properly, and I am a former heavy smoker, it is still dangerous and a huge risk.

what lots of people untrained in law miss is the entire concept of ESTOPPEL

how can a government claim an item is so dangerous and unsuitable for citizens to own (even citizens with years of military service or expertise in the area) and then issue the same items to everything from Poultry inspectors to dog wardens to IRS Agents?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

what lots of people untrained in law miss is the entire concept of ESTOPPEL

how can a government claim an item is so dangerous and unsuitable for citizens to own (even citizens with years of military service or expertise in the area) and then issue the same items to everything from Poultry inspectors to dog wardens to IRS Agents?

Don't even get me started on accountants with guns...............

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Don't even get me started on accountants with guns...............

hey poultry inspectors need machine guns. Ever been mobbed by a posse of pissed off chickens or anarchist turkeys?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

hey poultry inspectors need machine guns. Ever been mobbed by a posse of pissed off chickens or anarchist turkeys?

That infuriated me, right along with the FDA and USPS inspectors claiming they needed subbies.

 

[Moot]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

The fed doesn't have that power. That is a state power. Furthermore, the second protects the ownership of firearms. The reason? Because militias often furnished their own.

I think that state power might've changed with the fourteenth amendment incorporating state laws.

I find it interesting that you would invoke militias as the reason for the protection of firearm ownership.

 

[Moot]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Nobody said anything about hunting man. The point I'm making is that the second amendment gives us ownership of arms. Currently I have one hunting weapon in my apartment that I do not use (single shot 20 gauge). It is a home defense gun. It cannot be regulated because it IS a hunting weapon. My CHOICE OF WEAPON can be regulated whilst hunting (3 shell max on migratory, and so on). But that has nothing to do with ownership of a firearm.

Did you mean "...about hunting man"...or..."...about hunting, man"? What a difference a comma can make.

 

[domer76]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Nobody said anything about hunting man. The point I'm making is that the second amendment gives us ownership of arms. Currently I have one hunting weapon in my apartment that I do not use (single shot 20 gauge). It is a home defense gun. It cannot be regulated because it IS a hunting weapon. My CHOICE OF WEAPON can be regulated whilst hunting (3 shell max on migratory, and so on). But that has nothing to do with ownership of a firearm.

The 2nd gives you the right to bear arms. But not any kind, any time, nor anywhere. Even the RW Scalia mentioned that in Heller.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

I look forward to seeing this case get a full hearing before the Supreme Court in a year or two down the road.

 

[Moot]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

The difference with tobacco:
1) The product directly harms the consumer

So can guns.

2) This product causes physical addiction, further harming the consumer

Guns can jeopardize public safety.

3) Substantial effort went into hiding this harm from the population

Substantial effort by the NRA to stop all government studies on guns and their effect on the population and public safety. What are they trying to hide?

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

I think that state power might've changed with the fourteenth amendment incorporating state laws.

I find it interesting that you would invoke militias as the reason for the protection of firearm ownership.

Given the historical context of the law, the MILITIA section makes perfect sense. Militiamen kept their firearms at home. Thus the right to keep them was very important.