Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: AgentShillington

Why is the dad not "in their sights" before the mfg? I'll tell you my opinion, because they have more $$$$$$$$$$$$$ than he does. Follow the money.

Was it the dad's gun? If it wasn't the dad's gun, then I don't see what he has to do with anything.

He didn't kill anyone.
The guns used weren't licensed to him.

He shouldn't be held accountable for the same reasons you saw the mother SHOULD be held accountable.

As his father, HE is MORE responsible IMO than the gun mfg who didn't even know AL, let alone know the mother. How can these parents reach out and try to tag the mfg before the rest of the family that KNEW that AL had mental challenges, knew he had ready access to firearms that he was prevented from owning by a successful application of the system in place? That is my point. They are both ridiculous options. However, the mfg has more $$$$$$$$$$$$ available to siphon away for the lawyers.

So, everyone with mental illness is a threat and should be treated like one? Interesting point of view, but I don't really subscribe to it.

Way to miss the mark completely there "shilly". Where did I say that at all? I guess you missed my statement that I think "They are both ridiculous options." But then, I guess selective memory is a gift for some....and they use it as a discussion point.

Thanks "shilly", but, not my bag..............baby.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: xuenchen

So... 13? You come back with 13?

There has been a school shooting every 5 weeks since Sandy Hook. That's just school shootings.

Oh the ** Drama **

FBI: More People Killed With Hammers/Clubs Than Rifles

There are a LOT more guns than.. rifles. I find it telling that your source article needed to whittle it down to a subsection of firearms, not taking into account, shot guns or short barreled hand guns.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Felony eh ?

SomeONE busted for drug possession, or bouncing a check should lose their CONSTITUITONAL right to own a gun?

Even their debt to society HAS BEEN PAID screw them eh?

I wish to god those who call themselves liberal would stop doing it.

EVERYTHING they stand for is the antithesis of what the word means.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: AgentShillington

Why is the dad not "in their sights" before the mfg? I'll tell you my opinion, because they have more $$$$$$$$$$$$$ than he does. Follow the money.

Was it the dad's gun? If it wasn't the dad's gun, then I don't see what he has to do with anything.

He didn't kill anyone.
The guns used weren't licensed to him.

He shouldn't be held accountable for the same reasons you saw the mother SHOULD be held accountable.

As his father, HE is MORE responsible IMO than the gun mfg who didn't even know AL, let alone know the mother. How can these parents reach out and try to tag the mfg before the rest of the family that KNEW that AL had mental challenges, knew he had ready access to firearms that he was prevented from owning by a successful application of the system in place? That is my point. They are both ridiculous options. However, the mfg has more $$$$$$$$$$$$ available to siphon away for the lawyers.

So, everyone with mental illness is a threat and should be treated like one? Interesting point of view, but I don't really subscribe to it.

Way to miss the mark completely there "shilly". Where did I say that at all? I guess you missed my statement that I think "They are both ridiculous options." But then, I guess selective memory is a gift for some....and they use it as a discussion point.

Thanks "shilly", but, not my bag..............baby.

"IMO" means "In My Opinion", so when you preface a post with that, I am going to take you at your word. I'm sorry that I didn't know your code at the bottom meant that you were buying your opinion back and not to take it seriously.

a reply to: neo96

I know. I thought liberals were for less restrictions, more freedoms, less government intrusion... Ugh they're as bad as the right.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet or not, but there is actually a federal law which protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits arising from criminal misuse of firearms and ammunition. Sections A, part 5, and B, part 1, address this directly.

Even without that, it is, on its face, a frivolous lawsuit. The gun manufacturer essentially sells their product to a distributor, who in turn sells it to the gun shop. Then gun shop then sells it to the buyer, in this case, to the mother, following her passage of a background check. Everything to that point was apparently legal. They can't control what happens from there.

I believe they're also claiming that the weapon used was a 'military weapon' and that the manufacturer should have responsibility there. Two problems. One, its not a military weapon. It bears a resemblance to one, but no military uses a semi-automatic AR-15. Second, and more importantly, its irrelevant because even if it were a 'military weapon', the laws of the country are such that they can manufacture that particular product for sale to the domestic civilian market.

So, honestly, unless they can directly connect the defendants to the perpetrator of this crime, I can't see a case here. Maybe they find a left-leaning judge and jury and win an initial victory, but its very, very likely to get tossed on appeal if that were to happen. I doubt it gets that far, though.

The only way they can 'win' this case is if the defendants decide that its not worth the publicity and choose to settle out of court.

a reply to: vor78

They'll cry and scream, show pictures of their kids, ask for politicians to speak on their behalf. In the end they're greedy and exploiting their dead children.

a reply to: neo96

Yes I agree with you, as long as they are around everyone should be allowed to have one if they see fit.

Just wish people would stop shooting people with them so much.
And if people continue to refuse to such, something needs to change.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Just wish people would stop shooting people with them so much.

Then let the US government, and the police lead by example.

a reply to: Sremmos80

As long as they are around.... so what does that mean?

I wish people would stop stabbing and beating eachother to death with their fists but we won't act on those.

a reply to: vor78

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet or not, but there is actually a federal law which protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits arising from criminal misuse of firearms and ammunition. Sections A, part 5, and B, part 1, address this directly.

Yep, this is going to be tricky case, but I just saw an interview with the lawyer and he believes that he has overcome that problem.

I believe they're also claiming that the weapon used was a 'military weapon' and that the manufacturer should have responsibility there.

Right.

In their legal motion, made public on Monday, the families say 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, “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency.” Individuals deemed mentally unfit to operate the weapon can gain access to the firearm, they added. The families ask that the company admits accountability for the consequences of selling the rifle.

---------

The families allege that Bushmaster knew, or should have known of the high risks posed by the rifle, including the ability to use it to inflict maximum casualties and to generate multiple deaths and serious injury.

www.msnbc.com...

The NRA is pretty powerful. I think it's unlikely these families will win, but we'll see soon enough.

a reply to: windword

He's grasping at straws. A "military" weapon, pathetic, money-grubbing scum. Not afraid to say it one bit.

a reply to: neo96

Those that have lost loved ones will cling to anything they can to get what they perceive as justice.

In this case the lawyers are playing to their sensitivities and getting them to go against bushmaster. It is a political play on their part...using grieving families to do their dirty work.

Fact is that Lanza was f'ed in the head and did this. The gun didn't matter. Could have done the same with homemade bombs or whatever.

Easy scapegoat for the lawyers to push the families to blame. Everyone wants retribution.

a reply to: neo96

Then let the US government, and the police lead by example.

I 100% agree neo, guess the impossible can happen.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Everyone wants money and to serve a political agenda. As for the anti-gun politicians, they have armed guards.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

wait what? being mentaly ill is grounds for you to black ball some one? so what do u think should be done with the mentaly ill then? i mean we have tried forcibly sterilizing them(tried that),and institutionalizing them(tried that too) experimented on them for years(did that one as well electro shock or forced lobotomies any one?) and yet they are the ones we have to worry about? whats next ya want us to all wear a shiny yellow star so you can know who's mentally ill or not? statsitics vary but anywhere from 1/5th of the us population has a mental illness to the higher estimates of 40-50% of the population of usa is mentally ill just how exactly do you plan to keep your children away from all the scary mentally ill people allowed to run free then?
www.newsweek.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (46% of the population(usa) by age 75 will have had or will have a form of mental illness)

do you not get how offensive that statement is? how come that seems to be the only group on ats that is fair game to mock openly with out consequence? seen threads get shut down for far less when applied to either minorities or certian religions being critizied but by all means lets mock the mentally ill cart blanch and make them seem like pedos who should not be allowed near children....

more on topic this lawsuit will do one and only one thing make lawyers rich as its gonna get tossed out but you know they will still want their cut.

i mean are we gonna start suing ben and jerrys because some people dont have proper impulse control and cant control their eating? i saw they are trying the "its a military weapon" angle last time i checked most ar's were not select fire (off the shelf mind you) and dont see that standing either as hey mosin nagants are a military weapon and there are quite possibly hundreds of millions of them out in the world and yet no one is suing Remington(they made the rifle for czar of russia before civil war) or the tula arsenal for all the bodies mosins have stacked up over the years.

lever action rifles used to be military weapons too and yet no sign of a suit against winchester or marlin or tauras (and these at least could arguably have been used in real honest to god war crimes in the past)

the whole lawsuit screams of attention seeking on their part,i just hope they get counter sued and have to pay their opponents legal bills and get punished for filing a frivolous lawsuit , i am unsure if they will be able to counter sue on those grounds but i know in us TAX courts at least frivolous lawsuits are punishable

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

It's worse than that.

Their solution to bad guys with guns is to call the good guy with guns.

American Foreign policy is enforced by the barrel of a gun.

Domestic 'peace' is enforced by the barrel of a gun.

And EVERYONE from mayors to congressman to presidents hide behind guys with guns.

The whole thing is a load of snip.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Cause that is just ridiculous.
Apples and oranges using hands as a comparison

And take what I said how ever you want, its clear what I meant IMO.

a reply to: windword

It goes back to the same problem, though. They're arguing that Bushmaster should have known that there was a high risk if someone were to illegally obtain the weapon and use it in a criminal act. But that goes right back to the law I posted earlier, which prohibits lawsuits on those grounds.

They may be able to successfully sue the distributor and the gun shop, but I can't see any way they win against the manufacturer. Even with the distributor and LGS, however, I just don't see it, as their responsibility only extends to the buyer and in that case, they appear to have done their due diligence. Once it leaves the store, its not their fault if its stolen and misused.

Pretty easy for bushmaster to defend considering the death certificates apparently don't exist.