User Panel
Quoted: So this is legal prescedence for me to sue Government Motors/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota/etc when some drunk hits me? They should have known vehicles are dangerous and therefore they are liable for its criminal use. I'll be here waiting for the Sandy Hook families to turn in their dangerous motor vehicles. View Quote Of course they know their vehicles are dangerous! Just look at all the safety features they have put on cars over the years yet cars still kill thousands of people every year! |
|
|
Good news for NYers... those of you that did not comply should be able to sue them for making it too right? I mean, whats the difference?
|
|
|
Quoted:
So argue because it's supposedly a "military" weapon it's exactly what is protected under the 2nd Amendment. Not only should they sell them, everyone should have one with a basic load of ammo, training, and gear! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just heard this on the news this is very very bad So argue because it's supposedly a "military" weapon it's exactly what is protected under the 2nd Amendment. Not only should they sell them, everyone should have one with a basic load of ammo, training, and gear! They say Healthcare is a right and forced everyone to have it so now it stands to reason that all citizens should be mandated to own firearms. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Read the documents here: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTCV156048103S
|
|
After reading it, the court denied the motions to dismiss on a technicality and did not actually decide if the federal law prohibited the plaintiffs' claims. So the article in the OP is wrong.
|
|
|
50,000 firearm owners should be protesting at the courthouse tomorrow.
|
|
|
Quoted:
After reading it, the court denied the motions to dismiss on a technicality and did not actually decide if the federal law prohibited the plaintiffs' claims. So the article in the OP is wrong. View Quote Yep, but why let boring old reality get in the way of getting riled up. Basically, the judge said the defendants made their arguments too early, and they'll have to make them again later. Most likely, the defendants are trying to set up an appeal on a narrow issue in case the judge later rules federal law doesn't protect the defendants from the lawsuit. |
|
Quoted:
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (CBSNewYork/AP) — A Connecticut state judge has denied a gun company’s motion to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed by families of some of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. The lawsuit, which has been the center of a heated debate, alleges the families of the Sandy Hook victims have the right to sue the gun manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 used in the incident because the manufacturers knew the gun was too dangerous for public use. Freedom Group, the Madison, North Carolina, parent company of AR-15 maker Bushmaster Firearms, says it’s protected by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled Thursday that a federal law protecting gun makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians. “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied. The families look forward to continuing their fight in court,” Josh Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, said in a statement Thursday. The lawsuit recently made its way into the political spotlight, when Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was criticized for reportedly saying he did not support the plaintiffs in the suit. “…I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people,” Sanders said in an interview with the Daily News. “So if somebody walks in and says, ‘I’d like 10,000 rounds of ammunition,’ you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product.” Bushmaster Firearms has not yet commented on the ruling as of Thursday afternoon. On Dec. 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20, shot and killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Lanza killed his mother before the school shooting and killed himself afterward. Last year, more than a dozen victims’ families split $1.5 million under settlements of lawsuits filed against the estate of the gunman’s mother. link View Quote Problem for the Judge is that the product was legal to sell at the time. |
|
|
Quoted:
Just wait until Hillary stacks the Supreme Court View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just heard this on the news this is very very bad Just wait until Hillary stacks the Supreme Court Won't affect the PLCAA, which is clearly within the recognized authority of Congress over interstate commerce. |
|
Quoted:
So state of CT passes a law that says you can have an AR15 if it has the "military features" removed. And rifle in question was legally obtained. But now its shouldn't have been sold because it was for military use? After state already made it unusable for military use by removing those features. http://i.imgur.com/ut2cFJt.gif View Quote the best part is you can still buy full feature pre bans here in CT |
|
Quoted:
Yep, but why let boring old reality get in the way getting riled up. Basically, the judge said the defendants made their arguments too early, and they'll have to make them again later. Most likely, the defendants are trying to set up an appeal on a narrow issue in case the judge later rules federal law doesn't protect the defendants from the lawsuit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
After reading it, the court denied the motions to dismiss on a technicality and did not actually decide if the federal law prohibited the plaintiffs' claims. So the article in the OP is wrong. Yep, but why let boring old reality get in the way getting riled up. Basically, the judge said the defendants made their arguments too early, and they'll have to make them again later. Most likely, the defendants are trying to set up an appeal on a narrow issue in case the judge later rules federal law doesn't protect the defendants from the lawsuit. Just go with it, they're rolling. Hell, both sides of this argument are busy overreacting. The anti-gunners are celebrating something they don't even understand right now, while people here freak out about it. |
|
Isn't it going to be nice when this goes to the "Eleanor Kagan" stacked USSC?
Remember, all Ds and Rs are the same. |
|
The laws are no longer followed in America.
"We have concluded that Lois Lerner did nothing criminal".........DOJ. We live in a Banana Republic. Everyone should know this by now. |
|
fine.
If I get in a wreck I'm suing Chevrolet, the maker of the other vehicle, and Fruit of the Loom, because my undies were tight and distracted me. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Case will be argued that the AR15 is a military weapon. Some General comes in and says, wow, it looks like what we use but it is not, stop calling it a military weapon. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Not surprised since its a state level judge. It will probably be tossed once it is appealed to the federal level. Edit: The state judge apparently said that the federal law doesn't prevent the case from being argued. So the case will probably get argued then tossed, if not by that judge by the next one up the food chain. Case will be argued that the AR15 is a military weapon. Some General comes in and says, wow, it looks like what we use but it is not, stop calling it a military weapon. That's not the General they will call to testify in the case. |
|
Quoted:
No it's not. It will go through the courts, BM will win, and counter sue to reclaim their attorney's fee, crippling the families that sued them financially. Then we will find out who is financially supporting and pushing the families to do this. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just heard this on the news this is very very bad Ayup, pretty much this..and the failure of this suit will Strengthen the law protecting manufacturers. The ONLY People who want this to win is an incredibly small Minority who can't grasp the repercussions if it DOES Succeed. Because EVERY Product manufactured would be on the table if it's misused and injures or kills someone. Drunk Kills someone? GM gets law lawsuit. Car gets STOLEN< and runs someone over, or is used in a Bank Robbery where people are killed... Car Maker gets sued. HoodRats beat the fuck out of someone with a Louisville Slugger?? Bat Company gets sued. It's a slippery slope that anyone with ANY concept of Reality (Not something that is normally an issue to Hoplophobes) Understands. This is the EXACT Reason General Aviation is priced out of the range of most Middle-class people now Liability Lawsuits, in accidents that were 100% Pilot Error, in aircraft that in some cases were DECADES Old, drove costs through the roof. In the case of Cessna, a 125% increase in base price because of Liability insurance. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those of you living in Connecticut have a name to add to your list it would seem......You DO have a list don't you? The first rule of the list is... Not asking for a confirmation, just a friendly reminder.......... |
|
|
Quoted:
The Lawful Commerce in Arms act was specifically to prevent these cases from even going to a discovery phase. The entire point of these lawsuits in the '90s was to bankrupt and disrupt firearms businesses by burying them in lawyers and paperwork, not to actually win cases. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So this is legal prescedence for me to sue Government Motors/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota/etc when some drunk hits me? They should have known vehicles are dangerous and therefore they are liable for its criminal use. I'll be here waiting for the Sandy Hook families to turn in their dangerous motor vehicles. You have always been able to do so. No one would bother as it is a frivolous lawsuit you are certain to lose. Now if your goal was to bankrupt a company, and you were a municipality that didn't mind filing multiple frivolous suits against a company until they could no longer afford to defend themselves and went out of business. Well you have just won your objective without winning a case. BINGO. The Lawful Commerce in Arms act was specifically to prevent these cases from even going to a discovery phase. The entire point of these lawsuits in the '90s was to bankrupt and disrupt firearms businesses by burying them in lawyers and paperwork, not to actually win cases. The Lawful Commerce in Arms act was specifically to prevent these cases from even going to a discovery phase. The entire point of these lawsuits in the '90s was to bankrupt and disrupt firearms businesses by burying them in lawyers and paperwork, not to actually win cases. Correct - and I actually see yesterday's ruling as an overall WIN. Look: -they are certain to lose under LCAA. -their argument about "too dangerous" is also frivolous and will lose, but also -it will establish that the common AR-15 is NOT too dangerous; more people are killed by clubs and knives every year than by AR-15s. No reasonable jury could conclude that the AR-15 is more dangerous than other legal firearms protected by the 2nd and affirmed by Heller and McDonald. The loss will cost the plaintiffs their war chest and serve as a deterrent to future frivolous cases like this. The Antis gain only ONE advantage that I can see here: free publicity. |
|
woah.
a judge has spoken. we should all respect that decision. gay marriage and abortion have proven that whatever a judge says is infallible. |
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
woah. a judge has spoken. we should all respect that decision. gay marriage and abortion have proven that whatever a judge says is infallible. Isn't that how Banana Republics roll? thats how society progresses. three generations of gun owners are enough. |
|
|
Quoted:
The law says you can't, but we disagree with the law, so the law is moot. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Judge is wrong. I thought the FOPA granted immunity from these things. The law says you can't, but we disagree with the law, so the law is moot. I'm tired of this shit. I'm tired of the fact that there is no accountability for the judges who pull this shit either. The law is the law. |
|
|
|
I read the judge's opinion last night. There's no reason to get worked up (yet). I'll try to summarize it.
Some of the Sandy Hook parents sued Bushmaster (and a bunch of other companies) in Connecticut state court. Bushmaster tried to get the lawsuit moved to federal court, claiming the state court did not have jurisdiction. Bushmaster lost that. The federal court sent the case back to state court. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a federal law that mostly makes gun manufacturers immune from products liability lawsuits. However, the PLCAA lists several circumstances where gun manufacturers can still be sued. The Sandy Hook parents crafted their lawsuit to try to fit within two of these exceptions. In most courts, a defendant can move to dismiss for every reason it has all in one motion. In Connecticut state courts, the defendant has to attack jurisdiction first and by itself. Other defenses, like immunity from suit under the PLCAA, have to be brought up later. The motion we're talking about here dealt only with whether the Connecticut state court had jurisdiction. Bushmaster used the PLCAA to argue that the Connecticut state court did not have jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit. This was a longshot legal argument. There are strategic reasons why Bushmaster made it, but I doubt Bushmaster ever expected to win it. All the judge ruled is that the PLCAA did not deprive the Connecticut state court of jurisdiction to decide whether the lawsuit fit within either of the two exceptions to the PLCAA that the Sandy Hook parents sued under. If you think about it this makes sense. The PLCAA specifically allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers in a few, narrow situations. Since some lawsuits are allowed, there has to be a court that can hear them. The federal court already decided it could not hear the lawsuit and already sent it back to the Connecticut state court where the lawsuit started. With that already happening, there was very little chance the state court judge was going to say it didn't have jurisdiction to decide whether the lawsuit fit within one of the exceptions to the PLCAA. |
|
Quoted: Exactly. Why aren't the idiots suing the FBI for failing to (somehow) know that the legal and lawfully qualified buyer was going to be killed by her retard son who would then go and kill all those chilluns? And Obungo failed to appoint an AG and a Director of BATFE who had the required psychic abilities. So in the end, it's Obungo's fault. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So... Bushmaster shouldn't have sold a rifle to a distributer who sold that rifle to a retailer who sold that rifle to a woman who passed a background check that has been sold to civilians since 1965. Exactly. Why aren't the idiots suing the FBI for failing to (somehow) know that the legal and lawfully qualified buyer was going to be killed by her retard son who would then go and kill all those chilluns? And Obungo failed to appoint an AG and a Director of BATFE who had the required psychic abilities. So in the end, it's Obungo's fault. Complete fraud from start to finish. |
|
|
Quoted:
She said they have a "right to argue " . Got to keep the lawyers paid. View Quote On the other hand, if she granted the defendant's motion to dismiss at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs would immediately file an appeal. Commonly, when an appeal is filed, the potential contingency fee paid to the plaintiffs' attorney jumps from 30 to 40%. Plus, you'd have to bring in a team of appellate specialists, possibly even from another law firm. How much do you think those guys charge an hour? I mean, why play your hand so early, when you are almost certainly going to appeal later on anyway? Lots of legal fees between now and then. |
|
Quoted:
exactly. It's a political issue. they will meet them half way. They will pretend like it's a serious issue but in the end. assuming law prevails.. will be tossed at some point. But nobody can say they didn't "try". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Not surprised since its a state level judge. It will probably be tossed once it is appealed to the federal level. Edit: The state judge apparently said that the federal law doesn't prevent the case from being argued. So the case will probably get argued then tossed, if not by that judge by the next one up the food chain. exactly. It's a political issue. they will meet them half way. They will pretend like it's a serious issue but in the end. assuming law prevails.. will be tossed at some point. But nobody can say they didn't "try". Plus, the Judge banks serious political capital towards a federal appointment, if she is so inclined. |
|
I'm a dumb person but here is my logic
The gun, Bushmaster XM15 semi-auto rifle, is legal to manufacture, market, sale, buy, own, and use for lawful purposes like self-defense. The gun was legally purchase by the monster mother in 2010. The monster murdered his mother and stole her guns to use for unlawfully murders. So by no way is the FFL, distributor, and/or Bushmaster/Remington liable. Any smart persons here want to poke holes in my dumb logic? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.