Judge rules Newtown families' lawsuit against gun maker can go forward

A lawsuit can go forward against the maker of the rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, a judge ruled Thursday. Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, argues there is an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others.

Blame the Manufacturers

This is a very good example, in my opinion, of the lunacy of the American legal system.

Have a Constitutional Amendment that gives citizens the right to bear arms. Have Federal Laws that regulate how weapons can be sold (and what checks on the end-user purchaser have to be made prior to sale), and what weapons are legal to sell to citizens.

Then, after a firearm manufacturer produces a legal weapon, sells it to a legally authorized wholesaler, who then follows all Federal laws and sells it to a legally (and Constitutionally) entitled citizen...who has the weapon stolen from her, by a mentally unstable individual (who happens to be her son...and murderer),and is then used in the commission of a heinous crime - allow affected families of the crime to sue the manufacturer of that legal firearm.

Madness.

Here are some future lawsuits to look forward to America:

1) Stanley Tools will get sued after some lamebrain uses a claw hammer to bludgeon his spouse/girlfriend/coworker/neighbour
2) General Motors will get sued after a woman runs over a cyclist during a road rage incident
3) The Puma Knife Company will face a law suit after an ISIS sympathizer uses one of their products to slash people on a subway platform
4) Easton will get sued after a Minor Leaguer losses it and beats an Umpire to death with his bat, after getting called out on strikes

I assume that everybody knows...especially since it has been a hot issue on the Democratic side of the Primary season...that changing the laws and the court system so as to allow people to sue gun makers, is the Left's big play at nullifying the 2nd Amendment without having to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. That is, bury all of the gun manufacturers with so many law suits and massive settlements that they go out of business - or stop selling guns in America.

Elect Hillary folks, and kiss your "right to bear arms" (if you can find any) goodbye.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Isn't it a fact that cars kill more people than guns? Do car manufacturers know this? And yet they still make cars. You don't even need to be 18 to buy one. Ermagurnasue!!!!

a reply to: mobiusmale

This is a very good example, in my opinion, of the lunacy of the American legal system.

Of course it appears lunatic, as lunatic as suing the pencil company when your kid fails at math.

There in lies the deception, they're not after criminals, just firearms.

Next week they plan on suing Chevy and Ford because criminals use their vehicles as getaway cars. And while were at it, shoes they walked into the crime scene in, shirts and pants they wore…

a reply to: mobiusmale

That Judge needs disbarred ASAP. To say semiautomatic rifles are military weapons and should not be sold to civilians, shows how ignorant and unwilling to be impartial she is.

GTFO with that nonsense!

a reply to: intrptr

I cut myself with my kitchen knife. Ermagurnasue!!!

Money grubbing families out to make millions and a name for themselves. Pathetic pieces of "work" I say. They may get rich off the tragedy, but they will still be morally bankrupt....

a reply to: mobiusmale

You have got to be kidding me. What in the Actual HELL, reminds me of Paul Walker's daughter trying to hold Porsche responsible for his death in a high-speed crash.


Idiotic.

That is not a nicer fair thing to say.

They have lost loved ones and are looking for someone alive they can blame.

They are going after the wrong people however. I very much doubt they will win the case. As much as I agree with the right to own guns in a place where violence is very much a cultural thing, I can't say that should I ever be in their situation I wouldn't feel the need to do as they are.

a reply to: mobiusmale I just read this article on Fox, and then I had to read it again to make sure I didn't accidentally switch to the Onion. The rifle wasn't even used, according to the official story, two handguns were used, despite rifle casings being reported at the scene, (I'm sure that has been talked about to death in another forum.) this lawsuit wont go anywhere. But if it does, I guarantee ill be using this to my advantage next time I get a splinter. I'll sue the US forestry dept.

a reply to: mobiusmale

How many of our military personnel are issued semi-automatic AR-15s? Is there even 1? Can you imagine the look on that soldiers face when they hand him a semi-auto? According to their position, every semi-auto rifle is a military weapon. That would include the ruger 10-22. I would have assumed that this judge could figure that out and not allow this absurd lawsuit to take place. She should be disbarred. The fallout of this trial could make every manufacturer of ANY product, liable for any death caused by their product, murder or accidental.

Derble

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

I can only speculate, but i wonder if the far left sent their lawyers into newtown to stir this pot? Surely this has been a long and expensive campaign to get even this far after this much time. I wonder who is footing the bill? The families? Or special interest groups? How many politicians will back this with their support?

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
That is not a nicer fair thing to say.

They have lost loved ones and are looking for someone alive they can blame.

Wrong! They are being used by the anti-gun groups. These groups are trying to further their agenda and are willing to exploit these people to do it.

a reply to: KawRider9

That Judge needs disbarred ASAP. To say semiautomatic rifles are military weapons and should not be sold to civilians, shows how ignorant and unwilling to be impartial she is.

I actually think it's kind of silly that they make semi-auto versions of fully auto firearms. I get the purpose behind it however there are ways to convert semi-auto firearms to mimic a full-auto. It's completely legal to do so.

And at that point I'm thinking why don't they just sell fully auto firearms to civilians?
Would it add to the already complex issue of gun violence? Maybe it would,idk.
I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion as criminals have access to fully auto firearms through the black market...
So why not civilians.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Civilians do have access to fully auto rifles. If you get vetted to get the proper permit. And pay the 15,000-30,000$ Can you find someone who was murdered by a fully auto rifle being held by a properly vetted and permited civilian?

Black market is what it is. You can theoretically get anything on the black market. Hint: it's not an actual market.

a reply to: mobiusmale

So dumb blaming the gun manufacturers. This lawsuit will go nowhere.

Can we start lawsuits against abortion doctors for wrongful dead?

Apparently following the laws as they are doesn't protect you.

a reply to: mobiusmale

But you're missing the entire point of the ruling of the judge (with which, BTW, I disagree): He's not saying that the gun manufacturer(s) can be sued because of the killings, he said that they can be sued because the 2005 law doesn't stop the argument they're using that these guns should not have been sold to the public (because they're are claiming it is a military weapon).

It's a completely different approach than what you are talking about in the entirety of your OP.

Basically, the plaintiffs are arguing that these guns should be illegal to sell to the general public, and they want a judge to, in effect, legislate that agenda from the bench.

This isn't going to go anywhere, because anyone even remotely familiar with non-military weapons knows that you can pretty much get any caliber in any form of firearm as a semi-automatic weapon. It's not just the AR platform, and these people are going to be made to look stupid in a court room if their entire argument hinges on the belief that it is a "military weapon."

Now, if Lanza's AR had a 3-round burst option, then maybe they would have a point, but from everything that I've read, it's just a standard civilian AR where the selector lever goes only from SAFE to FIRE.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: mobiusmale

How many of our military personnel are issued semi-automatic AR-15s? Is there even 1? Can you imagine the look on that soldiers face when they hand him a semi-auto?

Ummm...MOST military personnel, when issued an M-16 or an M-4 rifle, are issued semi-automatic versions. Yes, they have a 3-round burst option, but if you're implying that all M-16s and M-4 rifles in the military are fully-automatic weapons, you're grossly mistaken.

Army Times

The Army-wide modification of about 483,000 M4 rifles into M4A1 started in 2014, an upgrade now about 11 percent complete according to Picatinny Arsenal spokesman Pete Rowland. The Army's targeted finish line: the end of September 2020.
...
The re-vamp of the M4 includes a heavier barrel, ambidextrous safety controls and conversion from three-round burst to fully automatic.
...
The Army is also replacing M16s with M4A1s, though so far only 1 percent of that initiative is complete. The official M16 replacement program will start in earnest this January [2016]. The Army has a roughly even split of M4 and M16 rifles.

So, yes, the vast majority of people in the military--or at least the Army--have regular ol' semi-automatic rifles that include a 3-round burst option, which is really just semi-auto on rifle growth hormones.

I read about this earlier today .....it's a gun grab move in my opinion.....so.....Should we sue the phone companies for all the texting while driving deaths ?