Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This simply treats the manufacturer like they are in every other industry. A level playing field.
The 2nd Amendment has protected arms manufacturing for 230 years. They have change Keep & Bear without an amendment, and a long time ago, right after the Civil War, that eliminated "Shall not be infringed. Then at the same time, they made Militias illegal, without an amendment.
Next time someone plows into me at a stop sign, I will be suing the automaker, if this sets precedent.
Don't forget the manufacturer of the STOP sign . They failed to warn you that people may fail to obey the sign . Who placed that sign there ? Why didn't they warn the public of the same ? Where does the absurdity end ?
My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones on that horrible day; but this is totally shameful, when have we moved away from personal responsibility for your own actions.
That rife could not have done anything without a person pulling the trigger. And the AR style rife is a very common sporting rifle, that cosmetically looks like it's Military Counter Part.
From the article I would be inclined to think that it will come down to the plaintiffs' lawyers being able to convincingly raise the question of whether this is really the case or not. Otherwise, I can't see the suit going any where.
The 2nd Amendment has protected arms manufacturing for 230 years. .
not from lawsuits. Nice try.
The industry fears the legal discovery process which was the motive for Big Tobacco to cave upon lawsuits.
This decision gets it one big step towards Discovery such as internal Remington memos on marketing techniques. Tobacco marketing was aimed at underage groups-hence it had no case. Did Remington target nutjobs prone to violence? We will soon know.
So, when a driver of a vehicle runs a stop sign and kills somebody or more than one person, is it the vehicle and automaker's fault? I guess this is the equivalent of when we hear about the media reports saying "a car ran a stop sign."
not from lawsuits. Nice try.
The industry fears the legal discovery process which was the motive for Big Tobacco to cave upon lawsuits.
This decision gets it one big step towards Discovery such as internal Remington memos on marketing techniques. Tobacco marketing was aimed at underage groups-hence it had no case. Did Remington target nutjobs prone to violence? We will soon know.
It doesn't matter who was "targeted" to buy these guns- the premise of the lawsuit is that the most popular modern sporting rifle in the country is "unsafe", and that even though 97% of guns used in crimes are handguns (not rifles), the gun is a "menace" to society. Which is patently untrue. Sandy Hook was committed with a stolen gun, so the advertising of the manufacturer is not an issue.
The law was written specifically to head off these kinds of baseless lawsuits, which are only designed to bankrupt manufacturers, not to make anyone "safer".
It doesn't matter who was "targeted" to buy these guns-".
we'll see as this heads to its proper place..our legal system. Time to take out all the dirty laundry. (and any mfg in danger of bankruptcy over one lawsuit had a failing business model from day 1)
This is ludicrous, it wouldn't surprise me if the primary motive of this law suit is money.
They could have chosen to file the law suit against the school district, for not having proper security or armed personnel, or the State of Connecticut for not having the known disturbed individual where he should have been, IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION, but instead they chose to sue the gun manufacturers instead, who had nothing to do with this horrendous act. It's about as ludicrous as filing law suits against knife makers for the predatory actions of criminals who stab their victims, or the families of drunk driving victims, suing car manufacturers for the irresponsible actions of a driver getting behind the wheel after having too many drinks.
Quote from article:
Quote:
Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the law "does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians," The Associated Press reports.
Somebody needs to remind those idiotic judges like Bellis, who probably doesn't know anything about guns, that the Bushmaster AR-15 is not the same as the full-auto M-16, that's used by the military.
Let's hope a judge with common sense will preside over this frivolous law suit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.