Does anyone with any competence in the law really think that the Sandy Hook lawsuit should succeed?

[Vattel]

I hope the judge doesn't dismiss it on the basis of anything in PLCAA. The suit would have no merit even if PLCAA had never passed.

[Press Virginia]

1. Its a case of chasing deep pockets and hoping emotional arguments

will trump facts

[LonePirate]

2. Is it a trial by judge or jury?

A judge may make the case a difficult one to win; but all bets are off if a jury is involved and the case deals with an incident like Sandy Hook.

[jmg257]

4. Judge deciding (supposedly this month) if suit should continue..

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/us/sandy-hook-court-hearing/


(CNN)A judge said Monday she plans to decide within 60 days whether a lawsuit filed by families of 26 people killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, against a gun manufacturer can continue."

[madville]

7. The guns were compliant with all existing laws

They weren't illegally sold. I don't see where they have a winnable case regardless of the federal law preventing such suits.

[jmg257]

10. Agreed. They are shooting for negligent entrustment, I THINK...

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.


Basically saying Bushmaster should know better then to sell AR-15s to the public, because bad people may gain access to them, and they are so dangerous.

[Press Virginia]

26. Then shouldn't the state of CT also be named, since they approved the sale?

[jmg257]

31. Yep - not very easy to sue legislators, I guess. nt

[lakeguy]

3. waste of taxpayer money

[Travis_0004]

55. I'm assuming when they lose, they will be forced to pay court cost

So hopefully it will not cost the taxpayers anything.

[Ferd Berfel]

5. Only if I can sue the knife Manufacturer

because of the guy that stabbed me with it back in college

[scscholar]

38. You should be able to

I don't understand what you're trying to argue for or against.

[cannabis_flower]

103. No he shouldn't

He can sue the guy who stabbed him, but not the knife manufacturer. There was no negligence on the manufacturer's part.

[Ferd Berfel]

112. So if someone hits me with a hammer - I should be able to sue

the Hammer Mfg?

I can sue GM if someone breaks my back by running into me with a Vett?

[scscholar]

113. They have illegally big engines...

are too damn low for pedestrian protection. Plus, pop-up headlights are just hateful to the public. They hurt so many people. Having something hard just under the shell hurts people. We need to stop GM from making them.

[Ferd Berfel]

115. Dude............

[athena]

116. You can.

You might have a hard time finding a lawyer who will take the case, but there is no law that says knife manufacturers can't be held responsible. There should be no law that provides gun manufacturers with a protection no other industry has. Hillary is right on this. Bernie is wrong.

[Ferd Berfel]

117. Bullshit. What an insane litigious nightmare you propose

Of course you CAN sue anyone for anything you want. But....


THen Hillary should be sued by everyone who had a family member killed in Iraq. Because of her dumbass vote

[athena]

118. You can't sue gun manufacturers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

That's what this issue is all about. And Bernie is on the wrong side of it, which is why he's being criticized.

Next time, do some research before you insult someone for pointing out the truth.

ETA: Bernie actually voted in favor of that bill. He voted to protect gun manufacturers in a way no other industry is protected. Hillary voted against it.

[Ferd Berfel]

123. Wow did you miss the boat

read back a few replies.

I know that gun mfgs. can't be sued. I dont' think they should be any more than Ford should be sued if some one hits me with a Mustang, or the hammer or the knife.

I agree with Bernie on this = total ban on assault weapons, MFG held responsible if they know they are selling to criminals et al, close all of the loopholes, stronger background checks.......

I think mandatory insurance for ownership (like cars) is a good idea too. And there is much more we can do.

But suing the mfg at this level opens up all of the other stupid examples

If someone trys to kill me with a baseball bat, I'll just sue the Louisville slugger folks

[Maedhros]

129. Not trying to be contentious, so correct me if I'm wrong.

An "Assault Weapon" would be one designed to be used in that role militarily.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=522

Assault

1. The climax of an attack, closing with the enemy in hand-to-hand fighting. 2. In an amphibious operation, the period of time between the arrival of the major assault forces of the amphibious task force in the objective area and the accomplishment of the amphibious task force mission. 3. To make a short, violent, but well-ordered attack against a local objective, such as a gun emplacement, a fort, or a machine gun nest. 4. A phase of an airborne operation beginning with delivery by air of the assault echelon of the force into the objective area and extending through attack of assault objectives and consolidation of the initial airhead. See also assault phase; landing attack.

One would select different weaponry (or, more likely, differently-armed units) for an assault action vs. recon, overwatch, infiltration, etc.

In that context I can think of some "assault weapons" - a flamethrower, for example, would be one of the best examples, or self-propelled "assault guns".

I'd say an "assault weapon" has a high rate-of-fire and a large magazine capacity.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

130. It's just that...

I never heard that term used in the military or by law enforcement.

The M-16 rifle is a 'rifle.'

The M-4 carbine is a 'carbine.'

I think you may be confusing things with the AK47

Which is a 'piece of shit.'

[Maedhros]

135. When people say "assault rifle" they mean "military rifle."

There are clear differences between firearms intended for military application and those intended for civilian use, i.e. sport rifles.

A rifle with a 30 round magazine and automatic fire would be a military or "assault" rifle. All the sport rifles I've owned had a magazine capacity of 7-15 at the most, and none were automatic fire.

I don't see a problem with restrictions on military rifles possessed by civilians.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

138. "I don't see a problem with...

... restrictions on military rifles possessed by civilians."

I don't see (except for a very few military-style target shooters) a use for the M-16/M-4 class (or civilian clones thereof) in society.

You will, however, need to prepare for nation-wide push-back on your views.

[Maedhros]

139. I understand.

Gun control is not my primary issue. However, I think it is possible to categorize different types of firearms for the purposes of regulation.

[Maedhros]

146. I'll watch for it. Thanks!

[Ferd Berfel]

131. You' will doubtless remain confused regardless

of anything I say.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

132. Thank you...

...that was very nice.

[jberryhill]

6. That's not a well formed question

Anyone with competence in the law knows that there are "questions of law" and "questions of fact". The first category are susceptible of answers from "anyone with competence in the law". The second category are not, because they are not inherently "legal questions".

The depth of ignorance about product liability claims here is staggering, but people get really twitchy about the topic in general, because they tend to believe that whether a defense is conclusive or not (such as "compliance with relevant regulations&quot is taking a position on the merits of a claim.

I doubt anyone here has read the actual documents in the litigation, so it's all just a matter of kneejerk reactions.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. Well then, how about we sue you. For damages you are giving us.

[msanthrope]

12. You do realize you are speaking to a highly competent attorney who is a Bernie supporter?

Dial it back.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. It's a joke. Take a pill.

I've had plenty of conversations with Jberryhill. I know he is an actual attorney.

I also know he has a dry sense of humor.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. Go to YouTube and search for Jerky Boys punitive damages.

There's a skit where they call an attorney about an "accident" they had. After the attorney tells them he can't help him, the "caller" asks "how about I sue you, for damages you are giving me"

The reaction from the attorney is hilarious.


Go to 1:18 where says he wants to sue for damages you are giving me.


https://m.

[Autumn]

94. Jury results to go with all the legal talk.

That was no joke. You just realized you overstepped.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1663506

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Personal attack.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:26 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I read a few posts and decided this to be inapproiate, by calling out tje mocerator.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It isn't any more of a personal attack than has occurred in this thread, a quick trigger on the alert button, if one gets a problem going then don't alert on the responses.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you

[Hassin Bin Sober]

95. Aha!!! My good name is cleared!!!! Thank you jury!

Maybe I should sue.

[Autumn]

96. I understand there is a very good lawyer up thread,

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. Who are you supposed to be again? I've never been a moderator.

[melman]

93. "Dial it back"

lol, look at the Thread Boss over here.

[Vattel]

25. Duh, of course you need to have the relevant facts to know how the case should be resolved.

[jberryhill]

44. That's not the point

No, I'm not talking about knowing what the facts are.

Procedurally, this case is not at a point where any facts have been proven. For the purpose of a motion to dismiss, which is where this case is, the facts alleged by the plaintiff are taken as true, and then the question is "even if all those facts are correct, can this case proceed as a matter of law."

On a motion to dismiss, no, you don't need to know the relevant facts, in the sense of, say, whether it is true or false that some factual proposition is or is not correct.

No one here at DU has, I would bet, even read the legal arguments in the case. And no one with any legal competence whatsoever is likely to opine without even knowing what the arguments - the real ones, not the cartoon cut-outs that pass for argument here - actually are.

[Vattel]

84. I understand all of that. I wasn't talking about whether the motion to dismiss should be granted.

I have read the legal arguments. Trying to stretch the notion of legal entrustment to apply to the alleged facts in this case seems like a nonstarter. The attempt to suggest that the harm resulted from violations of laws governing advertising is less implausible, but still a real stretch. I know this is not detailed analysis. I am just giving you my conclusions, not my arguments. But I really doubt that any legal experts who have looked at this case think that the plaintiffs have a serious shot at prevailing.

It's good that they are suing though because it gets the issue about whether these guns should be legal more exposure.

[EffieBlack]

90. Thank you!

Not only that, but these so-called "people of and for the people and not the millionaires and billionaires" sound like the right-wing Republicans who have been protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful by screaming about "frivolous lawsuits" and trying to force "tort reform" on us.

[kcr]

101. Exactly.

This is nothing more than tort reform nonsense and no one who supports Bernie because they want a change from our government corrupted by corporate interests should be supporting this. It is baffling to me.

[Vattel]

121. I don't support PLCAA. I think it is bad law and Bernie made a mistake in supporting it.

But I do think that the lawsuit in question should and will fail.

[EffieBlack]

133. But, as you seem to realize, that's different

Having standing to sue has nothing to do with the merits of individual cases. The fact that someone may not actually win a particular case once it goes to trial does not mean that no one similarly situated should have the right to ever bring a lawsuit.

[dsc]

8. I have no idea

just how did this company choose to market this gun? Had this gun been used this way before and the company do nothing? Was there something that the company could have done to make it safer that they refused to do?

[msanthrope]

11. Yes. The AR-15 is a battlefield weapon, marketed to civilians.

The company should be held accountable through the legal process. It did exactly what it was .marketed and designed to do....kill people.

[actslikeacarrot]

17. There are no AR-15's on the battlefield. N/t

[Press Virginia]

41. They're everywhere!!! Behind trees, in dark alleys

Under your bed.....and they'll get you


Unless you're in an actual war

[Press Virginia]

28. What about the state of CT which approved the sale of this "battlefield" weapon

yet to be found on an actual battlefield

[azurnoir]

79. NO it is not the M-16 is a battlefield weapon that is fully automatic as are most battlefield guns

these days -the AR-15 is the semi-automatic civilian version of that and for that matter the differences between the AR-15 and virtually any other semi-automatic hunting rifle are purely cosmetic

[HassleCat]

81. Incorrect

The version used in combat is capable of fully automatic fire.

[TeddyR]

111. Numerous posters

Just correctly pointed out that there isn't a single AR-15 on a battlefield and that the weapon used at Sandy Hook was NOT a military weapon. It was a single shot semi automatic rifle that fires at the same speed as any other single shot rifle or handgun on the market. So now that your misunderstanding has been corrected do you still think the lawsuit should proceed?

[Nanjeanne]

15. It seems to me if you allow guns to be manufacturered then it's pushing it to say

you can then sue the manufacturer if someone legally buys the gun and uses it for the purpose it was manufactured (which is to kill). That is all guns are used for.

Personally I'm so far to the left that I don't think anyone should have a gun except secret service, people on the battlefield and someone who lives on the wilderness and has to shoot to eat. I don't even think hunting should be allowed since I can't see the sport in killing a defenseless animal. So I'm certainly not "Annie Oakley".

If a gun accidentally misfires through negligence and someone is killed - sue the pants off the manufacturer. But otherwise, I'm with Bernie Sanders on this issue and I hate that it's being distorted by playing on people's emotions (and I speak as someone who lives right near Sandy Hook and lived through this horrific act).

[DanTex]

21. Would you make the same argument for financial products?

What if gun manufacturers know that their guns are being used in crimes, and they deliberately engage in business practices (marketing, design, sales) that they know are causing more guns to end up in criminal hands, and they make a decision to do that because they make more profit that way.

Because here's the thing. If any company outside of the gun industry does that, they can be sued, and the merits of their case will be heard by a court. But if it's a gun company, there is a special law that exempts them. Why shouldn't the gun industry play by the same rules as everyone else?

Also, whatever happened to the progressive idea that corporations should be held to account for damage they inflict on society?

[LAS14]

27. Exactly! Well stated.

[LAS14]

29. The merits of their case will be heard in court.

That's what Sanders' vote stops. Why not let a court decide whether this suit should win or not??

[Press Virginia]

33. What are the actual Merits? Remington made a gun and sold it to a dealer

Dealer sold the gun, legally, to the mother. Mother registered the gun in the state of CT, complying with the law.
Son murders mother, steals gun, uses it to kill 23 kids.

Which part was Remington's fault?

[mythology]

34. The part where they refuse to install biometric locks or other safety mechanisms.

Nader successfully sued car makers for safety issues and guess what, cars became safer.

[Press Virginia]

36. Refused? Where are these locks and other safety mechanisms being used?

How would a biometric lock have prevented a person, who was allowed to use the gun, from using it in a crime?

[LAS14]

35. I assume the court case would be...

... considerably more complex and nuanced. That's why we have courts. So we don't decide important stuff in newsgroups.

Let the Sandy Hook parents have their day in court!!!!

[Press Virginia]

39. what nuance. Remington didn't put the gun in Lanza's hand any more than the state of CT did

[LAS14]

45. Let the suit come to trial and find out the details then! nt

[Press Virginia]

48. You mean let the parents parade their dead kids before a jury

in hopes of a big pay day.

They're actually arguing that a sale, approved by the state of CT, violated the laws of CT. While pretending Bushmaster's are actually used in the US Military

[riderinthestorm]

51. As I understand it, there was a concerted lawsuit blitz against gun manufacturers

They were all dismissed as frivolous because of the 2A.

Lawmakers decided to protect the 2A from these frivolous lawsuits by passing the PLCAA.

The current Sandy Hook lawsuit would be another in a long line of similar lawsuits that have failed despite the . emotionality and tragedy.

In its own twisted way, its do you support the Constitution or the bereaved parents?



Lawyers feel free to correct me. I'm happy to be educated.

[DanTex]

71. That's incorrect. The reason the NRA wanted this law so badly is because there

had been some notably successful lawsuits against the gun industry. Smith and Wesson, for example.

The gun industry was losing in court, so instead they used political influence to protect their profits at the expense of the American people.

[riderinthestorm]

76. Are you a lawyer? nt

[DanTex]

83. No, but I'm someone who knows about gun policy, and knew about this law

long before it became a campaign issue.

What's strange is that until it came out that Bernie voted for PLCAA, there were zero progressives who followed gun policy and thought it was a good idea. And it was most certainly not about frivolous lawsuits that kept getting thrown out of court. It was a huge win for the NRA, and they wanted it so badly because the lawsuits were actually succeeding. And, the only people making arguments like "you don't sue Ford if you get hit by a car" were right-wingers. But now, because people need to defend Bernie, suddenly everyone's parroting the same NRA talking points.

The basic question is: why should the gun industry have a special immunity law that applies to them and nobody else? If this is based on some sound legal principle -- that corporations are immune from all lawsuits stemming from unlawful misuse of their products -- then it shouldn't single out the gun industry for special treatment. But, of course, it's not based on a sound legal principle, it's just a giveaway to the gun lobby.

[Press Virginia]

92. Because nobody sues GM after getting hit by stolen Malibus

If GM were getting sued for silly shit like that, they'd be protected too

[Press Virginia]

30. are they selling guns to these criminals?

Jack Daniels sells whiskey knowing it could end up in the hands of minors, are they liable for some kid dying from alcohol poisoning?

[DanTex]

50. Jack Daniels can be sued for that. They don't have the same legal immunity.

If they're intentionally marketing to minors, then there's a good chance they would lose, even if they aren't directly selling to minors. Tobacco companies got sued for marketing to children.

[Press Virginia]

52. Jack Daniels is liable for a kid stealing a bottle of Jack from their parents liquor

cabinet? Really?
Are they liable if a state liquor store sells their product to a minor?

[DanTex]

54. They can be sued for that, because they don't have a special exemption.

If it's just a kid stealing a bottle, the suit won't go anywhere. If Jack Daniels is actually marketing to children intentionally, then they could have a problem.

In the end, a court will decide. And it should be the same for the gun industry.

[Press Virginia]

59. What about a kid murdering his mother and stealing her gun? Same thing?

[DanTex]

60. The gun industry should play by the same rules as everyone else, period.

No special legal exemptions for anyone.

[Press Virginia]

64. you mean we have to pretend any suit against the gun industry

has merit?

[DanTex]

66. Of course not. Suits without merit get thrown out of courts all the time.

The courts decide whether suits have merit. But the gun industry should obviously play by the same rules as everyone else.

[Press Virginia]

68. They do.

[DanTex]

69. No they don't. PLCAA protects on the gun industry, nobody else.

It's a special single-industry immunity.

[Press Virginia]

70. Protects them from what?

[DanTex]

75. From certain kinds of lawsuits that no other industry is immune from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

[Press Virginia]

77. You mean like liability in the criminal actions of murderer with a stolen gun?

[DanTex]

78. That's one example. Other industries don't have that protection.

[Press Virginia]

82. Because no one would try to sue GM after a car jacker ran them over in a 74 Camaro

the gun industry isn't treated like other industries

[DanTex]

85. People file frivolous lawsuits all the time. The reason the NRA wanted this is for the

exact opposite reason: the lawsuits were not frivolous, they were in fact succeeding. Google Smith and Wesson.

[Press Virginia]

87. They were succeeding in bankrupting an industry engaged in lawful commerce

Nothing more

[DanTex]

88. Well, no. Just holding them responsible for all the damage that they were inflicting.

But the NRA didn't like having one of the most destructive industries in America being held accountable for their actions, so they got congress to pass a special immunity bill to protect their profits. It's as corrupt as it gets. And I'm happy to see Bernie getting heat for this.

[Press Virginia]

91. How were they inflicting anything through legal sales to their distributors?

[beevul]

141. Your problem, is that its those pulling triggers inflicting the damage. N/T

[Karma13612]

24. ^^^ this ^^^ eom

[geek tragedy]

19. are you a lawyer? nt

[Gwhittey]

20. I am going to sue

Jack Daniels for that really really old ass ugly chic I had sex with when I was younger. It left me emotional scared for life.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. You might have a cause of action.

I don't ever recall warnings about bad hook ups.

Birth defects and driving but no hook ups.

[Logical]

23. Wow, "old ass ugly chic", I bet you are a sexist jerk. But just basing that on your use of that term

[JTFrog]

57. Be sure to whine the next time you BernieBros get labled as sexist assholes.

Seriously. You couldn't have provided a more brilliant example of the scummiest part of this so-called "revolution".

[kcr]

102. Someone will show up with cute computer pictures and animation to show that there is no such thing.

That is a completely and totally made up smear, you know.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

32. There would probably be one very narrow way...

...to sue the manufacturer of an AR.

One of the little known facts about that rifle outside serious shooters or military personnel is that it employs a 'floating firing pin.'

When the bolt carrier group (BCG) goes into 'full battery' (it picks up a fresh round and chambers it)...

The firing pin may slide forward and dimple the primer of the fresh round as it sits in the chamber.

Occasionally, a shooter gets a 'slam fire' which is that the round fires without pulling the trigger when the BCG slams home.

For that reason, in the military, M-16/M-4 weapons are not only always pointed down-range (of course) but there are very high berms at the end of the range as well.

Someone in a more casual shooting environment may send a wild round somewhere if the shooting environment is not a rifle range built to military standards.

[LAS14]

37. I think the parents should have their day...

... in court. Then we could hear the details and be more able to have an opinion. But a jury could decide. Why are we stopping them from even trying? If it were completely frivolous, presumably the judge would notice and dismiss it.

[Press Virginia]

43. If the parents were honest about liability, they'd sue the state and the dealer

both of which have more to do with Lanza's mother owning that gun than Remington.

[Jefferson23]

40. They can challenge the law, why not?

Are you aware of the basis of the suit?

Essentially, Remington sells a weapon to civilians who have no training.
Its used in the military only after training. The AR-15, as required by
the military, encompass up to 100 hours of training. 30 rounds can be
fired in 10 seconds or less. I believe the law firm is including who Remington
markets this rifle to as well. Exceptions to the immunity law, one is
negligent entrustment.



Also, Remington issued a report where they stated their concerns about sales
could adversely effect their financial well being should background checks
etc become implemented.

Remington Annual Report 2015
http://www.freedom-group.com/ROC%20Q3%202015%2010-Q%20%28FINAL%29.pdf

PLAINTIFFS’
OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Objection-to-Motions-to-Dismiss.pdf

[Press Virginia]

42. Remington sells to licensed dealers. The Bushmaster is not used in any Military in the world

the state authorizes gun sales to civilians.

So where was Remington negligent?

[jberryhill]

46. Negligence is not a factor in product liability suits

Just FYI

[Press Virginia]

49. I should have said Negligent in their Entrustment

[jberryhill]

53. Negligent entrustment is something else entirely

And has nothing to do with product liability suits.

[jmg257]

62. You read the complaint PDF; reads like that's their grounds and isa qualification made in the PLCAA.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

[Press Virginia]

80. But the person to whom it was supplied was murdered.

should they have foreseen her murder, the subsequent theft and then the mass shooting when they never had any direct dealing with her?

[jmg257]

86. Not specifically. The complaint is more concerned with showing the frequent misuse

of ARs in the past, combined with the 'obvious' dangers in continuing to sell such weapons and magazines to civilians, and how they are marketed, even though they should know better.


Basically such a lawsuit hopes to punish a manufacturer for legal practices allowed by representatives of the people.

Hence the PLCAA.

[Press Virginia]

89. Frequent misuse of the Bushmaster, right?

They couldn't sue Remington because someone went wild with a Rock River AR in California 5 years ago.

I like how the sale violates CT laws even though the sale was a approved by the state

[Jefferson23]

47. The reasoning I stated for you is part of the argument being made within

the lawsuit. If you don't believe me you can google Koskoff/Remington.

I suspect their research brought them to the understanding the weapon
was made for the military and whatever modifications that may have
taken place are not significant.

Where are they negligent? We've been through this before, you already
know the basis for the suit, you just don't agree it has merit to succeed.

[Press Virginia]

56. Is it a military weapon or one that just looks like one.

"When Adam turned eighteen on April 22, 2010, he did not enlist; instead, he gained unfettered access to the military-style assault rifle his mother had purchased twelve days before. Id. ¶ 186."

[Jefferson23]

58. I guess that will be part of Remington's position in defense. n/t

[Press Virginia]

61. The previous post is statement from the Plaintiff's attorney in their filing

I mean if you're going to make a big deal about the military using this very rifle on the battlefield, seems kind of odd to then call it a rifle that looks only like one the military would use

[Jefferson23]

63. Not really, they are speaking to the rifles origins, don't you think? n/t

[Press Virginia]

65. no. They claim Remington is liable for selling a military weapon to civilians

but then say Lanza's mother had a Military Style weapon.

So which is it?

[Jefferson23]

72. No, I think you misunderstood. See post #67

[jmg257]

67. Summarized as "a civilian weapon designed for combat". That's their argument =

military weapon marketed and available to the public despite lack of "legitimate need" and too much risk of misuse.

[Press Virginia]

73. Civilian weapons aren't military weapons and military weapons aren't available to the general public

unless they are licensed by the Federal Government.

[Press Virginia]

98. I can guarantee there is no unit in the US Army or Marines

that carries a Bushmaster into combat.

They might look the same, they might shoot the same but they ain't the same.

Now the M9? Identical to the Barretta sold in any local gun store that carries the brand.
Remington 700? Identical
Mossberg Shotgun? Identical

But no one is making the argument that those ACTUAL military weapons should be banned

[jmg257]

104. Damn it - I want my Lend-lease M1 back. nt

[jmg257]

107. H&R and SA still in the safe. Must of gone through

at least a couple dozen over the years; carbines, etc. too. (was a half-ass collector when I couldn't really afford to be).

[jmg257]

109. That's a very good reason.

I also appreciate the engineering & history involved - what Garand came up with when it wasn't so easy.

Johnson did a great job too with the 1941.

[jmg257]

106. Yep agreed - especially concerning ARs vs M16s.

They spent a lot of ink trying to purposely blur the lines between the 2.

I especially like the blurb referring to the goofy Project Agile reports and the 'devastating' capabilities of the 5.56 (1 round decapitations and amputations).

[Jefferson23]

74. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

[moondust]

114. Wild guess.

Some ambulance-chasing lawyers may be preying on the vulnerable grieving families' figuring they (the lawyers) will get paid no matter how it turns out.

Maybe another one of these:

We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer

[jmg257]

124. I do not understand why the Brady Center is not footing the bill...they really

fucked over those poor people.

[beevul]

142. Thats the whole point.

Because now they can use it as a club to beat the PLCAA over the head with.

That was their intention in the first place, I'm pretty sure.

[jmg257]

144. Wow...interesting notion.

Sept 2015:
"Brady is still fighting for us pro bono and we see no evidence that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will not help us raise funds if and when that time comes."


April 7 2016
"Lonnie Phillips is filing for bankruptcy because he owes $203,000 to the company that sold his stepdaughter’s killer 4,000 rounds of ammunition over the Internet."

"The Brady Campaign has offered to help the family raise the money, but Phillips say they’d rather file for bankruptcy..
“It’s the principle,” he said.

[TeddyR]

119. Couple thoughts

Whether you oppose or support this lawsuit or the PLCAA you need to have your facts straight.

First, the rifle Lanza used is not a "military weapon" or an "automatic" or a "machine gun." It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle. That means that it fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled, just like every other single shot semi-automatic available on the market (and there are hundreds of different types available from many, many manufacturers). Yes, it can come equipped with a magazine that holds a significant number of rounds, but some semi-automatic handguns have magazines that hold close to 20 rounds. It CANNOT fire in bursts or in automatic mode, but like every other semi-automatic handgun or rifle it does fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

Second, the rifle Lanza used is not used by a single military in the world. It is a weapon designed for use by civilians.

Third, the rifle Lanza used was legal in the state of Connecticut at the time it was sold, was legally sold to the mother of Lanza, but Lanza killed his mother and took the rifle.

Based on those facts, no, I do not think that the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed, whether dismissed due to the PLCAA or simply dismissed on a motion to dismiss due to lack of merit. This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to skirt the Second Amendment and hold a manufacturer liable for the misuse of its product. If you don't like firearms, work to repeal the Second Amendment. If you want semi-automatic rifles banned or want stricter gun control laws, contact your state or federal representatives and work to get those laws passed.

Couple disagreements with some of the posts above:

DanTex asked

What if gun manufacturers know that their guns are being used in crimes, and they deliberately engage in business practices (marketing, design, sales) that they know are causing more guns to end up in criminal hands, and they make a decision to do that because they make more profit that way.

This is a frivolous argument. What in the world could a gun manufacturer due to "cause" guns to end up in criminal hands? Firearms are sold to licensed dealers who must perform a background check before selling that firearm to a civilian. If the civilian is a felon he/she cannot purchase the firearm. If the purchaser turns around and sells/gives that firearm to a felon that is the purchaser's fault (and a crime). The rifle Lanza used was fully compliant with all laws when sold. If you think that firearm manufacturers should be required to include trigger locks or other safety features (which I believe some states require) then get a law passed. I haven't seen a single ad where a manufacturer encourages someone to purchase their weapon and shoot children, or shoot people at an office event, or engage in any other illegal behavior.

Several posters opined that the plaintiffs simply should "get their day in court" or that "a jury should decide." Wrong. Getting your day in court isn't just filing a complaint and seating a jury. It typically involves motions practice and discovery that often runs into the millions of dollars. Even the Colorado case regarding the Aurora shooting that was dismissed (based on a Colorado law I might add) cost the defendants over $200,000 to defend - which ended up being paid by the plaintiffs who filed the frivolous suit - and that case was dismissed early before any discovery occurred. Why should a firearms manufacturer have to face millions of dollars in legal fees to defend what is on its face a frivolous lawsuit? And while Remington might be able to afford those types of fees, the mom and pop firearms or ammunition dealer on main street can't afford those types of fees. Prior to PLCAA gun control proponents were suing these small businesses because they knew it might force them out of business.

The PLCAA isn't a corporate giveaway, it is a bill that was passed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that sought to hold firearms manufacturers and dealers responsible for misuse of their legal product. In addition to Sanders, 11 or so Democrats voted for this bill, including Harry Reid. Gun control is the single area where Hills is arguably to the left of Sanders, and she is both wrong on the PLCAA and is exploiting the victims of gun violence for political gain, which is appalling.

[athena]

120. Are you a member of the NRA?

Your argument is wrong. The PLCAA was not intended to prevent frivolous lawsuits but to protect the gun manufacturers. What other industry is similarly protected from frivolous lawsuits? Let the justice system work the way it was designed to work. Let the justice system itself decide what is a frivolous lawsuit and what isn't.

Here is a good article about this:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-holding-gun-makers-responsible-20160307-column.html

[TeddyR]

136. So once again

Nobody can articulate a logical reason for holding the manufacturer liable in these types of cases. Thought not

[beevul]

143. Thats an opinion.

Your argument is wrong.

Thats an opinion.

The PLCAA was not intended to prevent frivolous lawsuits but to protect the gun manufacturers.

Protect them from what? Obviously they still get sued for defective firearms, so that isn't in question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=146863

What other industry is similarly protected from frivolous lawsuits?

Other industries that NEED the protection, due to repeated frivolous lawsuits designed and intended to bankrupt businesses:

Statement on Signing the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994
August 17, 1994


I am pleased to sign into law S. 1458, the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994." It is before me today as a result of bipartisan support in the Congress, and the hard work of many who have labored long to achieve passage of such legislation. The result is legislation that accommodates the need to revitalize our general aviation industry, while preserving the legal rights of passengers and pilots. This limited measure is intended to give manufacturers of general aviation aircraft and related component parts some protection from lawsuits alleging defective design or manufacture after an aircraft has established a lengthy record of operational safety.

In 1978, U.S. general aviation manufacturers produced 18,000 of these aircraft for domestic use and for export around the world. Our manufacturers were the world leaders in the production of general aviation aircraft. By 1993, production had dwindled to only 555 aircraft. As a result, in the last decade over 100,000 wellpaying jobs were lost in general aviation manufacturing. An innovative and productive American industry has been pushed to the edge of extinction. This Act will allow manufacturers to supply new basic aircraft for flight training, business use, and recreational flying.

The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations.

In its report to me and to the Congress last August, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry recommended the enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The report indicated that the enactment of such legislation would "help regenerate a once-healthy industry and help create thousands of jobs." I agree with this assessment; this is a job-creating and jobrestoring measure that will bring good jobs and economic growth back to this industry. It will also help U.S. companies restore our Nation to the status of the premier supplier of general aviation aircraft to the world, favorably affecting our balance of trade. Therefore, as I sign into law the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan work done by the Congress and by all the supporters of the general aviation industry.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

The White House, August 17, 1994.

NOTE: S. 1458, approved August 17, was assigned Public Law No. 103-298. Citation: William J. Clinton: "Statement on Signing the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," August 17, 1994. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=48984.

[Jitter65]

122. Hillary is not "exploiting" them anymore that Obama when he pleaded make gun control a issue in

this campaign. And yes, it might hurt Hillary with gun-advocate voters. That is obviously a chance she is willing to take and thus is making another thoughtful decision. One can hardly be accused of pandering or exploiting for political gain when the position taken is politically damaging. About using the courts. I am sure the families in Auroa did not feel that their case was frivolous. Laws can be changed and sometimes laws are bad. And yes, you are correct people ought to fight for changing the 2nd Amendment. But the courts do have a role. And whether or not we believe in the merits of the case, people ought to be able to exercise their rights under the law to use judicial remedies as they see fit. The justice system is in many ways like the our financial system .. the deck is stacked.

But at least understand why some suits that appear without merit may not be.

"In 2000 the Clinton administration reached an agreement with Smith & Wesson, to end federal and state lawsuits, in exchange for marketing and design changes by the company. Some of the items Smith & Wesson agreed to were; to sell guns with locks, to build the locks in the weapons within two years, implement smart gun technology, and take ballistic fingerprints of its guns.[15] Clinton called the deal a "major victory for America's families."[15] The NRA and other gun rights groups heavily criticized the settlement calling Smith & Wesson's actions "a sell-out",[16] with the NRA calling the agreement ""tantamount to back door blackmail".[15] Smith & Wesson's ownership changed in 2001 and the agreement fell apart after George W. Bush came to office and supported lawsuit protection for gun manufactures.[17] However, Smith & Wesson continues to sell guns with internal locks."

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

125. Smith and Wesson

"...to sell guns with locks, to build the locks in the weapons within two years, implement smart gun technology, and take ballistic fingerprints of its guns."

Smith and Wesson:

- Includes a lock with each gun it sells, but it is a cheap lock with a metal cable that can scratch a firearm's delicate finish.

- The internal lock mechanism - which requires a key similar to the ones that open handcuffs - have been derided as the 'Infernal Lock' or the 'Hillary Hole.' Most gun owners prefer storing their firearms in a safe.

- Smart Gun technology has been all but abandoned. It almost bankrupted Colt.

- Ballistic fingerprinting, which would imprint a microscopic code from the weapon's firing pin could be disabled with a nail file.

Previous iterations of Smith's revolvers (without the lock mechanism) have gone from near worthless surplus to sought-after firearms (and are approaching collector status in some cases) due to the introduction of the lock.

[MFM008]

126. If my kid was shot down like they were

I would sue everyone and everything, doesn't matter if it works or not. you would lash out at everything.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

127. Your lawyer

would be committing malpractice

[TeddyR]

137. And you would end up paying the attorney's fees

For filing frivolous lawsuits, at least with respect to the manufacturer.

[Vote2016]

134. it is like suing Ford for a drunk driver. the case would never stand up. if a serial killer used a

knife, could we sue the cutlery manufacturer?

[WiffenPoof]

140. So I was thinking....

Maybe the families of those who died on 9/11 should be able to sue Boeing (sarcasm).