Families of victims of Sandy Hook shooting sue gun maker

originally posted by: vor78
As I stated in the other thread about this lawsuit, there's actually a federal law that invalidates lawsuits arising from criminal misuse of firearms. On those grounds alone, the plaintiffs have no case. Furthermore, this was a firearm that was sold legally and where all parties presumably did their due diligence under the law. The manufacturer, distributor and gun shop aren't responsible for criminal misuse of their product by either the final purchaser or, as in this case, if it is stolen from the final purchaser.

Exactly. Its really difficult to convince a court of liability in rare instances of manufacturers defect. Impossible to recover liability on grounds of misuse of product. This case is completely about sending a political message and has nothing to do with recovering liability. Completely frivolous in that context.

The plaintiffs also argue that this is a 'military weapon', but that's problematic as well. First and foremost, its not a military weapon. It physically resembles one, but no military uses a semiauto-only AR-15 as its standard infantry weapon. Second, even if it is a 'military weapon', the law allows its production and sale to the civilian market. And finally, one could also argue that Supreme Court precedent from US vs Miller applies. In that case, the USSC found that weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment must have a valid purpose to a militia. If an AR-15 is indeed a military weapon, then it obviously has value and a purpose as a militia weapon and therefore is protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Both solid points. They legal hurdle to provide evidence that aesthetics affect functionality is nonexistent. The functionality of the AR-15 platform is exactly the same as a Mini 14. The ONLY difference is appearance. All internal parts are effectively the same, function is the same. The "military" claim is moot at best.

Your point re US V. Miller is rather prescient and one that hadnt occurred to me. Tere really is no leg to stand on from a legal perspective in this matter.

So needless to say, I think this case has more legal holes in it than a block of swiss cheese. I expect it to be thrown out of court, or, at worst, that the defendants choose to settle rather than suffer the bad publicity of a lengthy trial, even one they should ultimately win.

Personally, I would hope that if its not outright dismissed by a judge that it goes to trial. The legal precedent that stands to be set is, in my opinion rather important and needs to be a matter of public record as opposed to a closed door, sealed settlement because there's A. No justice in that and B. no reason for Bushmaster to be held liable for someone who was off his rocker and murdered to legal owner and stole the weapons in order to commit the crime.

a reply to: Xaphan
They have gone full retard. Not only is suing a gun maker for what an individual does with it stupid by itself, they are suing a gun maker of a gun he didn't even use. Are you going to sue ferrari if someone mows down your family in a honda?

a reply to: Xaphan

I can't imagine what those parents went through, and I don't even want to try. With that in mind, not knowing how or what they're feeling, I can't really comment on their stance.

I will say this though, you can't sue a car manufacturer for a drunk killing a person. You can't sue Boeing for a plane crash that is attributed to pilot error. You can't sue the water company when someone chokes on water.

a reply to: TKDRL

He definitely used it according to the official narrative.

This has been posted already, on phone or I would link it.

Don't get mad so quickly people, it will get thrown out and you all won't have to worry about a thing.

a reply to: Sremmos80
Yeah you are correct. I stopped thinking about it long ago, and had to put it out of my mind. It was a shotgun in the trunk. My bad.

According to the law it should be tossed out as soon as the first judge reviews it. The problem is it might end up in the lap of one of those judges that think everything should be reinterpreted to fit their personal feelings. Setting a new precedent like that could be really bad IMO. And not just for gun manufacturers, next could be cars, knives, baseball bats and who knows what else.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
it's a desperate attempt at somekind of justice.
Gun regulation in america is basically euql to drawing a picture of Muhammad, so you know that ain't gonna happen.
i find it laughable, the manufactor is not responsable for how you use their product.
A while back i remember someone choking his "friend"with the cord of an xbox controller...should the parents sue microsoft? (is that hwy the new controllers are wireless? hmmm)
But again. They are just trying to find a way to make sure this stuff doesn't hapen in the future, i guess their heart is in the right place.
And since a small group of idiots managed to ban GTA5 from Target, you never know what might happen in oversensitive america!

Nah, they are being used to make political hay over a tragedy. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

It is just as logical as suing Honda because Lanza drove one to the school.

A person who could not legally owned one stole it and used it in crime. Neither the manufacturer nor the retailer had anything to do with it.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Personally, I would hope that if its not outright dismissed by a judge that it goes to trial. The legal precedent that stands to be set is, in my opinion rather important and needs to be a matter of public record as opposed to a closed door, sealed settlement because there's A. No justice in that and B. no reason for Bushmaster to be held liable for someone who was off his rocker and murdered to legal owner and stole the weapons in order to commit the crime.

With the number of activist judges looking to make new law, I hope that this case is dismissed. If it were to go to trial, I have no confidence that the outcome you are speaking of would occur.

a reply to: JIMC5499

If it doesn't get dismissed, no way it makes it to trail.
Will be out of court settlement.

a reply to: Sremmos80

That means that the trial lawyers win. I'm pretty sure that is what they had in mind in the first place when they brought the lawsuit.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Meh, out of court settlement isn't much of a win.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: JIMC5499

Meh, out of court settlement isn't much of a win.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens

It is when the goal is to extort money from the gun manufacturer.