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

[Moot]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

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.

People have sued vaccine manufacturers...even though they weren't the ones that sold, stored, administered the vaccines to consumers.

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.

People have sued car manufacturers that knowingly sold defective cars that could or did cause serious injury and death. It is only because of litigation that the car manufacturers made safer cars. This law that protects gun manufacturers from litigation denies consumers their right to litigate for safer guns and safety devices for guns that are sold to the public. So if the government's mandate is to protect public safety then this law would have the opposite effect and violate the constitutional authority of congress to pass such a law. Not to mention this federal law doesn't apply "uniformly and equitably" to all industries or states as per Article 1, section 8, which brings into question the constitutionality of the law itself in protecting one industry from liability and not all the others.

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

People have sued vaccine manufacturers...even though they weren't the ones that sold, stored, administered the vaccines to consumers.



People have sued car manufacturers that knowingly sold defective cars that could or did cause serious injury and death. It is only because of litigation that the car manufacturers made safer cars. This law that protects gun manufacturers from litigation denies consumers their right to litigate for safer guns and safety devices for guns that are sold to the public. So if the government's mandate is to [/B]protect public safety [/B]then this law would have the opposite effect and violate the constitutional authority of congress to pass such a law. Not to mention this federal law doesn't apply "uniformly and equitably" to all industries or states as per Article 1, section 8, which brings into question the constitutionality of the law itself in protecting one industry from liability and not all the others.

I don't think you understand this at all. Or you deliberately are misrepresenting reality.

If a gun manufacturer sold a product that was DEFECTIVE and killed someone...that is one thing. When the product functions fine and the PERSON misused it...that is not the manufacturer. That is why car companies are not sued over a car being driven by a wreckless person. And a vaccine making someone sick is closer to a car having a defective part.

A firearm functioning correctly and being used to commit a crime is not the fault of the manufacturer.

Can you please demonstrate how often a firearm defect he caused death?

 

[braindrain]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

People have sued vaccine manufacturers...even though they weren't the ones that sold, stored, administered the vaccines to consumers.



People have sued car manufacturers that knowingly sold defective cars that could or did cause serious injury and death. It is only because of litigation that the car manufacturers made safer cars. This law that protects gun manufacturers from litigation denies consumers their right to litigate for safer guns and safety devices for guns that are sold to the public. So if the government's mandate is to protect public safety then this law would have the opposite effect and violate the constitutional authority of congress to pass such a law. Not to mention this federal law doesn't apply "uniformly and equitably" to all industries or states as per Article 1, section 8, which brings into question the constitutionality of the law itself in protecting one industry from liability and not all the others.

Was the rifle used defective. If not that pretty much defeats your entire argument.

The US government and the US agency that is responsible for regulating firearms has determined that AR15s are legal to own.

What's funny and shows the dishonesty of your position is you are trying to compare a manufacturer getting sure if they make s defective product and one getting sued because a nut job murdering the owner that product and then misusing that product.


Let me ask you a question.
Would you support a lawsuit against Ford if someone someone stole a Mustang from someone's house and then crashed into a crowd of people killing a bunch of them.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

for those of you gun restrictionists or banners who claim that the second amendment only was intended to protect militias, how does a militia exist if ordinary citizens cannot keep and bear arms?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

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.

Yeah...no. I have had to post this approximately 7 or 8 times now. This is the full context:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

This is a signal they are not striking down other existing limitations, not an open door to more limitations.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

So can guns.


Guns can jeopardize public safety.


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?

The NRA got tired of our tax dollars being used to create propaganda by an organization that has shown a bias and has no valid expertise in creating the conclusions it has in the past

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

People have sued vaccine manufacturers...even though they weren't the ones that sold, stored, administered the vaccines to consumers.



People have sued car manufacturers that knowingly sold defective cars that could or did cause serious injury and death. It is only because of litigation that the car manufacturers made safer cars. This law that protects gun manufacturers from litigation denies consumers their right to litigate for safer guns and safety devices for guns that are sold to the public. So if the government's mandate is to protect public safety then this law would have the opposite effect and violate the constitutional authority of congress to pass such a law. Not to mention this federal law doesn't apply "uniformly and equitably" to all industries or states as per Article 1, section 8, which brings into question the constitutionality of the law itself in protecting one industry from liability and not all the others.

the suits against Bushmaster are not based on the claim that the firearms are Unsafe for the user. that alone distinguishes this issue from cars. the purpose of these lawsuits are to create an end around the second amendment and the fact that congress correctly refuses to ban guns

none of the car suits were designed to ban cars or end driving

 

[Moot]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

the suits against Bushmaster are not based on the claim that the firearms are Unsafe for the user. that alone distinguishes this issue from cars. the purpose of these lawsuits are to create an end around the second amendment and the fact that congress correctly refuses to ban guns

none of the car suits were designed to ban cars or end driving

I think the lawsuit is claiming that the gun manufacturer advertised the AR-15 as a military combat weapon and as such should not have been sold to civilians. They are trying to use the gun manufacturers own words against them....

Those tactics, never tested before under PLCAA, dominate the allegations spelled out in the plaintiffs’ complaint. It quotes several advertisements from a catalog aimed at civilian gun buyers that is adorned with action photos of camouflage-clad soldiers and police in body armor. One reads, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” Other images tout the rifle’s “military-proven performance” and call it “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

With that type of marketing, the Sandy Hook families claim, “The Bushmaster Defendants attract buyers by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of their AR-15 rifles.” The complaint alleges that while the weapon is suitable for the military and for law enforcement—where it’s used for combat and limited police purposes—in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines...."

Was Gun Marketing Responsible for the Sandy Hook Massacre? - The Atlantic


I don't think this lawsuit was designed to ban guns, either.

 

[shagg]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Something tells me, if a Bushmaster was unavailable, Mr. Lanza would have taken whatever was available done exactly the same thing with it.


For me, this bring a different hypothetical equivalent to mind.

Angry wife runs cheating husband over with a Hummer. Husbands family sues manufacturer, because Hummer's are perfectly designed to run over and kill people, enhanced front bumper, wide tires, capable of sudden rapid acceleration. And they have that amazing ground clearance so you don't get hung up on the first few bodies and can go on to slaughter more innocent pedestrians.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Moderator's Warning:

Folks, this is not "Generic Gun Thread #32151". There is a specific Breaking News story that this thread is about. I suggest your posts going forward CLEARLY and DIRECTLY tie to discussing that event. Continued attempts to just continue the Gun Forum wars in a broad, generalized, "everything 2nd amendment related" way in this thread will result in action

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

I think the lawsuit is claiming that the gun manufacturer advertised the AR-15 as a military combat weapon and as such should not have been sold to civilians. They are trying to use the gun manufacturers own words against them....

Here's where it fails:

The complaint alleges that while the weapon is suitable for the military and for law enforcement—where it’s used for combat and limited police purposes—in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines...."

This is not for the court to decide. The Court has ZERO place to decide such a thing. The FACT of the matter is that the Government declared this weapon as suitable for civilian hands, and something that is not simply a "military and law enforcement weapon" the moment that such a weapon was able to be legally sold to civilians. As such, the entire basis of the lawsuit is unquestionably frivolous and should never have gone any further than being tossed out.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Cases like this are a great example of the left vs the right. The right supports the rule of law, the left supports outcome regardless of the law.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

for those of you gun restrictionists or banners who claim that the second amendment only was intended to protect militias, how does a militia exist if ordinary citizens cannot keep and bear arms?

They have axes and machetes until the govt assigns them arms. Militias existed before firearms. Arms existed before firearms. RPGs are arms, but we want people having those, do we?

/devilsadvocate

 

[haymarket]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

What legitimate use do weapons that are designed for the military for military purposes have in the hands of civilians?

 

[TheGoverness]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

What legitimate use do weapons that are designed for the military for military purposes have in the hands of civilians?

Idk...shooting targets or deer?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Idk...shooting targets or deer?

One would think that either would be a massive case of overkill in the extreme.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Moderator's Warning:

Folks, this is not "Generic Gun Thread #32151". There is a specific Breaking News story that this thread is about. I suggest your posts going forward CLEARLY and DIRECTLY tie to discussing that event. Continued attempts to just continue the Gun Forum wars in a broad, generalized, "everything 2nd amendment related" way in this thread will result in action

I wish than any of the resident attorneys here might offer some opinions as to how discovery might proceed in this case, now that the judge has said it may proceed.

 

[ludin]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

I think the lawsuit is claiming that the gun manufacturer advertised the AR-15 as a military combat weapon and as such should not have been sold to civilians. They are trying to use the gun manufacturers own words against them....

All one has to do is read the advertisement. it specifically states law enforcement and personal defense.
now here does it state military combat weapon because it isn't a military combat weapon.
it is a semi-automatic rifle just like the other hundreds of semi-automatic rifles on the market.

the military doesn't use ar15's they use the m16 or other.
I am sure that the ar15 has been tested it has to be for police performance.

I don't think this lawsuit was designed to ban guns, either.

Then there is no reason for the lawsuit to go forward as the gun maker is not responsible for the actions of the people that buy them.
just like a car maker is not responsible for the actions of the people that buy their cars.

 

[Samhain]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

What legitimate use do weapons that are designed for the military for military purposes have in the hands of civilians?

If it was military grade(i.e. burst or full auto), then it wouldn't be available for civilian purchase. And if it was so good, the military would actually be using it. They don't.

This lawsuit has zero chance of succeeding in the long run. The gun didn't malfunction, it fired one bullet for each trigger pull, so the manufacturer isn't liable for its use. The seller didn't sell to someone with a restricted background, so they aren't liable for it being stolen and used for murder. They could probably sue the estate of the mother for not properly storing her firearms, but not sure they are going to see any money from that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

I think the lawsuit is claiming that the gun manufacturer advertised the AR-15 as a military combat weapon and as such should not have been sold to civilians. They are trying to use the gun manufacturers own words against them....



Was Gun Marketing Responsible for the Sandy Hook Massacre? - The Atlantic


I don't think this lawsuit was designed to ban guns, either.

The Beretta catalog advertises that the Beretta handgun is (and correctly so) the US Military sidearm, Battle tested. Not grounds for a lawsuit

Its a moronic suit-the attorneys who brought it and the plaintiffs need to be destroyed financially for such a suit

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

What legitimate use do weapons that are designed for the military for military purposes have in the hands of civilians?

Entirely irrelevant, as that's not the role nor place of a judge to decide but that of the legislator. Judges do not make law, they rule based on it. The law at the time this gun was purchased and used was that it was entirely legal for purchase/use by Civilians, and thus the company is not in any way liable for producing it for such a market.

Your question is irrelevant to the case.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Entirely irrelevant, as that's not the role nor place of a judge to decide but that of the legislator. Judges do not make law, they rule based on it. The law at the time this gun was purchased and used was that it was entirely legal for purchase/use by Civilians, and thus the company is not in any way liable for producing it for such a market.

Your question is irrelevant to the case.

the plaintiffs will try to claim that military inferences means killing large numbers of people. The defense will note that saying the military chooses their products (Rock River arms made lots of mileage noting their AR 15 platform was chosen by the DEA law enforcement agents) because they are RELIABLE, DURABLE and dependable

self defense is a legally recognized reason to own a firearm. CCW licenses are a direct result of that.

claiming that references to military reliability=offensive killing of combatants is not a proper negligent entrustment argument

 

[haymarket]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

If it was military grade(i.e. burst or full auto), then it wouldn't be available for civilian purchase. And if it was so good, the military would actually be using it. They don't.

This lawsuit has zero chance of succeeding in the long run. The gun didn't malfunction, it fired one bullet for each trigger pull, so the manufacturer isn't liable for its use. The seller didn't sell to someone with a restricted background, so they aren't liable for it being stolen and used for murder. They could probably sue the estate of the mother for not properly storing her firearms, but not sure they are going to see any money from that.

Our society needs to properly define what guns should be available for civilian use and what other weapons should be available for police and military use.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

Entirely irrelevant, as that's not the role nor place of a judge to decide but that of the legislator. Judges do not make law, they rule based on it. The law at the time this gun was purchased and used was that it was entirely legal for purchase/use by Civilians, and thus the company is not in any way liable for producing it for such a market.

Your question is irrelevant to the case.

Since our legal system is part and parcel of American society and should reflect will of the people--- remember a government of the people, by the people and for the people -- I was not posing this as a strictly narrow legal question but as a question the American people need to examine as part of this issue which goes beyond a mere legal issue of the moment.

We need to clarify what the American people want in terms of weapons availability so that this question can be clarified.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Sandy hook lawsuit: Judge rules against gun companies

What legitimate use do weapons that are designed for the military for military purposes have in the hands of civilians?

Opposing the military when it becomes a tool of tyrants. Opposing foreign invaders. That was the purpose of the 2nd amendment after all. To ensure the right of the people to defend their freedom.