Latest Breaking News

Gothmog

(174,292 posts)

368. If negligent entrustment cases are exempted from PLCAA then why would pleading mention this?

Tue Dec 23, 2014, 07:17 PM

Dec 2014

This is a state court pleading and in Texas at least you have far more loose pleading standards than in federal court. The PLCAA expressly exempts negligent entrustment cases and this case is based on this theory. It will be interesting to see if the case is somehow removed to federal court. Negligence cases tend to be hard cases to get summary judgments on in state court and so this case may get to a jury. Again, Section 5A(ii) of the PLCAA expressly exempts negligent entrustment cases and that may be a big enough exception to allow this case.

There are some amusing articles on the internet claiming filing this case in state court is somehow part of a conspiracy to hide the fact that the state autopsies of the Sandy Hook victims were faked. I think that it is clear why the plaintiffs want this case in state court and not federal court is that they hope to get a state court judge to rule on the PLCAA exemption.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

380 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Parents of Sandy Hook victims planning lawsuit against gunmaker Bushmaster [View all] azurnoir Dec 2014 OP

Won't even make it out of the batters box. VScott Dec 2014 #1

I see two attorneys looking for some media attention. Ikonoklast Dec 2014 #10

So nobody should do anything then right. pasto76 Dec 2014 #38

How do the attorneys get past this? GGJohn Dec 2014 #41

Why does closure always seem to involve a lucrative payout? Nt hack89 Dec 2014 #68

A few simple reasons discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #262

How much is each YarnAddict Dec 2014 #86

Perhaps they should do something beneficial rather than something futile Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #308

for what Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #2

The Bucks Come From Gun Purchases otohara Dec 2014 #8

I see you forgot to blame the person who did the killing. Ikonoklast Dec 2014 #11

amazing is it not Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #15

His Mother, His Shrinks otohara Dec 2014 #19

more killed by other means than Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #30

Always Downplaying Which Gun Is Used otohara Dec 2014 #98

Who here has said this is ok? GGJohn Dec 2014 #103

Just an observation, branford Dec 2014 #111

No, not OK Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #122

No more and less than "of course the firearm had no relevance... the shooter did it with his bare ha LanternWaste Dec 2014 #296

I disagree. An inanimate object has no agency. Adrahil Dec 2014 #346

We Are All To Blame otohara Dec 2014 #18

"you want nothing done" Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #13

I see you blame everyone and everything except the actual shooter. GGJohn Dec 2014 #35

This message was self-deleted by its author otohara Dec 2014 #107

Hey, let's start suing Jack Daniels for drunk drivers! Adrahil Dec 2014 #335

This message was self-deleted by its author otohara Dec 2014 #341

Not for the criminal actions of others hack89 Dec 2014 #342

This message was self-deleted by its author otohara Dec 2014 #345

Laws are how we legally define and categorize something hack89 Dec 2014 #347

This message was self-deleted by its author otohara Dec 2014 #348

Here is the problem hack89 Dec 2014 #349

And you can sue the hell outta the person who accidentally fired. Adrahil Dec 2014 #344

Bankrupt the bastards! RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #3

Can you show us an example of this advertising? Thanks. nt hack89 Dec 2014 #6

By advertising, I include youtube videos RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #17

I think this is what your friend is getting at... bobclark86 Dec 2014 #36

And those ads advocate mass killings? hack89 Dec 2014 #42

I'm just saying that's what it must be... bobclark86 Dec 2014 #49

Yes indeed she did. And how did that work out for her? calimary Dec 2014 #50

But do those ads promote the shooting of people? GGJohn Dec 2014 #51

Yes. As do ads promoting tactical weapons, sniper rifles, etc. Hoyt Dec 2014 #73

And they ain't promoting shooting people either. GGJohn Dec 2014 #75

I think they promote the subtle message that this is some sort of "solution." calimary Dec 2014 #84

There's lots of other uses for firearms besides shooting people, GGJohn Dec 2014 #89

What did she need the gunz for? (nt) stone space Dec 2014 #157

Recreational target shooting hack89 Dec 2014 #160

Amassing such an arsenal was kind of a... stone space Dec 2014 #161

how many weapons in that arsenal? Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #163

In hindsight? GGJohn Dec 2014 #164

Well, those with no foresight still have hindsight, I suppose. stone space Dec 2014 #170

Yeah, GGJohn Dec 2014 #172

In light of her son's mental illness, yes. hack89 Dec 2014 #178

I don't see any advertising the shooting of people. GGJohn Dec 2014 #43

How do these promote killing? Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #44

Interesting how some folks can see this ad... stone space Dec 2014 #280

Most folks, to be accurate. n/t beevul Dec 2014 #315

I'm sure that the ad seems perfectly normal to ammosexuals. (nt) stone space Dec 2014 #316

It seems perfectly normal to most people. beevul Dec 2014 #319

Uh...no. stone space Dec 2014 #320

A poll on an anonymous, admittedly left-leaning, expressly Democratic internet forum, branford Dec 2014 #323

It could be posted in bansalot Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #330

Uh yes. beevul Dec 2014 #324

Can you post a link to the Bushmaster using advertisement to promote killing? GGJohn Dec 2014 #9

By advertising, you can include youtube videos RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #16

I think not Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #21

Yeah, but if they didn't condone them RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #94

I doubt it Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #121

Epic Fail. GGJohn Dec 2014 #32

They can't link to one Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #33

No, but if the manufacturer thinks... RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #99

Now you're reaaallllyyyyy reaching. GGJohn Dec 2014 #105

In a sane world they would have been sued and bankrupted a long time ago... NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #52

Sued for what? GGJohn Dec 2014 #53

No RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #97

Sorry, but that's not a legal defense here. GGJohn Dec 2014 #102

OK Mr Barrister. RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #104

You can dream all you want, GGJohn Dec 2014 #106

OK Mr. Barrister RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #109

Your rationale is constitutionally impermissible. branford Dec 2014 #113

not to mention hunting for food Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #123

I'm am actually a commercial trial lawyer, branford Dec 2014 #110

Section 5A(ii) of the act exempts cases under negligent entrusment Gothmog Dec 2014 #366

The negligent entrustment theory is creative, but entirely unconvincing. branford Dec 2014 #370

on what grounds? Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #62

You do know, don't you, YarnAddict Dec 2014 #87

The gun was connecticut ban compliant. What negligence would you levy at them? X_Digger Dec 2014 #127

I would state RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #129

I would state Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #131

You would state a lie? The primary use of firearms is to collect dust in a gun cabinet.. X_Digger Dec 2014 #132

I would state abe1976 Dec 2014 #269

Sandy Hook topics always brings out the NRA with their false analogies. Knives & pointy sticks have TeamPooka Dec 2014 #334

So the actual death toll is irrelevant? The only thing that matters is what it was designed to do? hack89 Dec 2014 #343

I did not say that, but I like how you try to make a straw man argument. So pathetic. nt TeamPooka Dec 2014 #350

You are the one that dismissed knives as murder weapons hack89 Dec 2014 #351

I merely pointed out knives have non-lethal uses. You have termed that "dismissing them as murder TeamPooka Dec 2014 #352

You gave knife manufacturers a pass in regards to the criminal use of their products hack89 Dec 2014 #353

Your right. Other uses for a gun: It's a replacement for a small penis. TeamPooka Dec 2014 #354

You certainly represent the gun control side well hack89 Dec 2014 #357

An insulting PM and a penis reference hack89 Dec 2014 #359

"BTW, this is why your a bad debater." beevul Dec 2014 #360

Why is it that the pro gun control crowd always, inevitably, fall back on the penis reference? GGJohn Dec 2014 #363

Because its all they have left. N/T beevul Dec 2014 #365

It will be tossed out of court Lurks Often Dec 2014 #4

Oh, you can sue anybody for anything, pretty much, bobclark86 Dec 2014 #39

Best of luck! But I just don't see how a suit like can get anywhere. vkkv Dec 2014 #5

You can always trust lawyers to enrich themselves by exploiting tragedy. nt hack89 Dec 2014 #7

And the NRA and gun makers Doctor_J Dec 2014 #26

Oh how I wish there was an actual hell, there would be an entire wing for them NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #54

Oh, I could think of some of its members RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #100

I understand their wanting to make a point, but they'll lose very early in the game. n/t ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #12

They'll be tied up in court for years bluestateguy Dec 2014 #14

The case will not be in court for years. branford Dec 2014 #108

I can assure you this law firm is not to be under estimated..they're well respected here in Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #20

How is the firearm manufacturer Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #22

The firm has not stated how they're liable and it is completely up to the families Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #27

I don't see them successfully suing the manufacturer. GGJohn Dec 2014 #40

Bet any way you like. The firm has not stated in what capacity Bushmaster is liable, yet. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #64

See that's the problem with this frivilous lawsuit, GGJohn Dec 2014 #66

According to you. n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #69

According to the law. GGJohn Dec 2014 #71

uh huh..because you're an attorney and know that wiki has convinced you..evidently, not Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #117

so what is the reason Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #77

You can't comprehend that you're uninformed due to the fact that the firm has not Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #119

I am not uninformed Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #128

Like I said, and will repeat once more...they have not stated their reasoning for liability claims. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #133

nope Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #134

Why didn't they sue the bat maker? ripcord Dec 2014 #23

They go after who they believe they can make a case..that's how it works. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #24

+1 BuddhaGirl Dec 2014 #25

I think so..I am very pleased too. n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #28

Couldnt agree more...tell it and tell it loud and often, I say...Thank you, buddhagirl NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #56

You do realize this lawsuit will go absolutely nowhere don't you? GGJohn Dec 2014 #60

Might as well go after the NRA while they're at it... blkmusclmachine Dec 2014 #29

That wouldn't be such a bad idea. RoccoR5955 Dec 2014 #101

"Forces of Opposition, Bow Down." stone space Dec 2014 #31

"Truly the most versatile and adaptive rifle ever conceived" BuddhaGirl Dec 2014 #34

Not one ACR has ever been used to kill anyone, anywhere, at any time. Ever. Ikonoklast Dec 2014 #55

Truly disgusting toy... NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #57

Not a toy. GGJohn Dec 2014 #63

Military-styled firearms are treated by way too many as elaborate, lethal toys. Paladin Dec 2014 #112

Although I won't disagree that some treat guns as "barbies for me" Adrahil Dec 2014 #336

not a toy Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #65

It's obnoxious and sickening BuddhaGirl Dec 2014 #67

Yes, indeed. sick sick sick NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #70

Not really, that's a pretty cool looking rifle. GGJohn Dec 2014 #72

but it looks scary Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #78

Great thing about the AR platform Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #46

It certainly has been proven effective with school children. (nt) stone space Dec 2014 #48

any object can be misused Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #61

Yeah, get back to us on that one...... Paladin Dec 2014 #168

Do you support banning any type of gun that could used in a Sandy Hook type shooting? hack89 Dec 2014 #180

Long on rhetoric and short on honest answers to hard questions. beevul Dec 2014 #314

How many people die each year due to alcohol abuse? Adrahil Dec 2014 #337

About time. What grounds? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #37

No real legal grounds. Mixture of emotion and lawyer greed hack89 Dec 2014 #45

none, I think Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #47

Shaky, at best, given the absurd way our laws protect these manufacturers of death. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #58

Gun manufacturers have the same rights as every other manufacturer hack89 Dec 2014 #59

They've been successful against bars, why not lethal weapons promoters? Hoyt Dec 2014 #74

The bars are more like gun dealers - they have direct contact with the purchaser hack89 Dec 2014 #76

They produced it and made it to excite gun lovers.. They knew exactly Hoyt Dec 2014 #79

So? GGJohn Dec 2014 #82

If that was the case you would think there would be a huge spike in deaths due to rifles hack89 Dec 2014 #88

Depends on your definition of "spike" and whether they use the AR or Hoyt Dec 2014 #115

Most people consider "spike" to mean "sharply increase" in this context friendly_iconoclast Dec 2014 #118

How about any increase regardless of gun type hack89 Dec 2014 #120

Lots of sick folks have been buying them, and practicing to shoot people. Hoyt Dec 2014 #130

Yet they don't appear to be actually shooting real people in increased numbers hack89 Dec 2014 #288

Handguns do concern me, but not your gun buddies. They keep adding to their collection and strappin Hoyt Dec 2014 #310

But even then the number of deaths is steadily decreasing hack89 Dec 2014 #317

Because of factors like better surveillance, aging population, etc. Hoyt Dec 2014 #332

So you admit that more guns doesn't equal more shootings? GGJohn Dec 2014 #333

So you are blaming the Patriot Act for less violent crime? hack89 Dec 2014 #338

Then sue the firearms dealer Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #81

There is a defect-- the guns are made to excite users' baser instincts. Hoyt Dec 2014 #85

That's not a defect that can be legally used in any lawsuit. GGJohn Dec 2014 #91

Belief in animism is strong amongst gun control advocates friendly_iconoclast Dec 2014 #95

LMAO. You guys can't walk out the door without a gun strapped to your body. Hoyt Dec 2014 #114

I don't own a gun. Your remote viewing abilities are on a par with your cosmology friendly_iconoclast Dec 2014 #116

I have firearms Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #124

I don't carry a gun. beevul Dec 2014 #235

Apparently you are not aware of... malokvale77 Dec 2014 #186

It's still not a defense that will work against firearms manufacturers. GGJohn Dec 2014 #189

Never say never. malokvale77 Dec 2014 #190

Not in this case, GGJohn Dec 2014 #192

First of all... malokvale77 Dec 2014 #198

My bad. GGJohn Dec 2014 #199

No harm, no foul. malokvale77 Dec 2014 #201

Do you realize that the "affluenza" case was a criminal matter branford Dec 2014 #196

Yes I do malokvale77 Dec 2014 #197

Nonsense like that is usually heard in regards to metal bands... friendly_iconoclast Dec 2014 #93

You know what excites my baser instincts far more than any of my thirty-nine firearms? sir pball Dec 2014 #137

Sounds to me this ad was aimed at folks just like you. Hoyt Dec 2014 #147

Ahhh, you're so cute. GGJohn Dec 2014 #148

That's a gun. That does nothing for me. I said that, pretty clearly. Now, where's the bike?! sir pball Dec 2014 #149

OK.. It takes 39 to get you excited. Hoyt Dec 2014 #150

Nah, it's just a collection. Most of them are nice and old fashioned, I just liked them. sir pball Dec 2014 #152

Cool video, GGJohn Dec 2014 #151

Going to watch the big drags was amazing. sir pball Dec 2014 #153

God, I remember when NHRA used to allow us to stand right there on the side of the track GGJohn Dec 2014 #154

I got snuck in to the line when I was a kid sir pball Dec 2014 #155

Good times my friend, GGJohn Dec 2014 #156

That idiot is Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #166

The only person likely to get killed in that video is the rider himself. EX500rider Dec 2014 #206

yes and no Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #210

Why this lawsuit will fail KinMd Dec 2014 #80

readiing the story Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #83

The guns were bought legally by Nancy Lanza KinMd Dec 2014 #90

Yep, and that's why this lawsuit will fail. GGJohn Dec 2014 #92

Yep Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #125

This case will go nowhere fast. branford Dec 2014 #96

Thank you Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #126

I've seen Boeing get successfully sued a number of times Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #270

have they had Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #274

There are actually specific laws and treaties that deal with airline liability branford Dec 2014 #286

A hint at where they may be going with this lawsuit, from Koskoff in 2013: Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #135

Yeah, no, they're going to lose this lawsuit big time. GGJohn Dec 2014 #136

An interesting theory that is, at best, premature and will go nowhere fast. branford Dec 2014 #139

Yea, I read your opinion and the other pro gun rights advocates in this thread. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #140

I'm not a "pro gun rights advocate." branford Dec 2014 #141

You're not, eh? Interesting take you have. Yes, I noticed how often you have mentioned Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #143

Advice I got from an old attorney when I first started: COLGATE4 Dec 2014 #146

Just so you know LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #159

Except they won't succeed with this case. GGJohn Dec 2014 #142

How does that address the Op-Ed he wrote? What makes you think he is not aware of the law? Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #144

What I find difficult to understand is that these blood sucking lawyers GGJohn Dec 2014 #145

Blood sucking lawyers and you support laws designed to protect the arms manufacturer. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #158

Same laws that protect the automobile industry, GGJohn Dec 2014 #162

The automobile industry is not protected that way, that is absurd to even suggest. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #165

So you're telling us that the auto industry can be sued because someone uses GGJohn Dec 2014 #167

I think you're lost as to what the Op-Ed Koskoff wrote is suggesting...they are not going after the Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #169

I read the op-ed and even they admit that the chance of a successful GGJohn Dec 2014 #171

Again, Koskoff admits no such thing..that is the opinion of the blog host, who acknowledges Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #173

As I said, the law is crystal clear on this GGJohn Dec 2014 #174

They don't agree with you...thankfully. n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #175

Fine , they don't agree, GGJohn Dec 2014 #176

You're certainly free to root for the Remington Outdoor Company..no law against that. n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #177

"They believe themselves largely immune from product liability lawsuits"... VScott Dec 2014 #179

Blame the Brady family..how nice of you. You're part of the problem, not the Bradys. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #191

Not the Brady family, the Brady Org. GGJohn Dec 2014 #194

Since when is the Brady family not supportive of the Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #195

There are many products that are not lancer78 Dec 2014 #331

Wish they'd sue Alex Jones for instigating harassment of victims' families Adenoid_Hynkel Dec 2014 #138

Gunner trash rejoice that these families have no recourse alcibiades_mystery Dec 2014 #181

Nobody's rejoicing here, GGJohn Dec 2014 #182

you were alerted on. malokvale77 Dec 2014 #183

Jury Results: 99Forever Dec 2014 #184

I would laugh, but the whole damn thing is too sad alcibiades_mystery Dec 2014 #185

I was Juror #3. 99Forever Dec 2014 #188

You do realize that there are many Democratic and very liberal gun owners branford Dec 2014 #193

I realize that I and many others are damn tired of being held hostage... 99Forever Dec 2014 #200

How civil of you Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #204

Don't care. 99Forever Dec 2014 #218

Like the President Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #222

A swing and a miss. 99Forever Dec 2014 #224

and how is that? Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #228

I've been called a "gungrabber" here on multiple occasions. stone space Dec 2014 #271

that ranks right up there with shithead and murderer Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #273

Let's be clear on what is meant by the epithet, "gungrabber". stone space Dec 2014 #277

As a rule, I don't interact with gunner trash alcibiades_mystery Dec 2014 #207

yes like not calling people names like shithead and trash Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #211

Very revealing, GGJohn Dec 2014 #214

correct Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #217

What a bucket of nonsense. beevul Dec 2014 #219

Save for your gunner pals... 99Forever Dec 2014 #221

Youre entitled to your opinion... beevul Dec 2014 #226

You damn straight I'm entitled to my opinion. 99Forever Dec 2014 #230

and so are we Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #233

You're held hostage by the NRA, branford Dec 2014 #234

I for one Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #225

it is sad Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #203

Not every criminal act provides ready or easy civil recourse. branford Dec 2014 #187

link to one just one Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #202

They were sued by the Beltway sniper victims and settled BeyondGeography Dec 2014 #205

You're forgetting that the DC Sniper killings took place in 2002, before the passage of GGJohn Dec 2014 #208

That didn't keep Cerberus from dropping the co. like a hot potato BeyondGeography Dec 2014 #209

Irrelevant. GGJohn Dec 2014 #212

We'll see BeyondGeography Dec 2014 #213

Oh I very much doubt that they're squirming, GGJohn Dec 2014 #216

Squirming? The level of armchair lawyering is outrageous. branford Dec 2014 #232

They'll squrm for non-legal reasons BeyondGeography Dec 2014 #242

Firearm sales skyrocketed after Newtown, including in blue CT, branford Dec 2014 #265

So did bans of the AR 15 BeyondGeography Dec 2014 #266

I'm well aware of New York law and politics. branford Dec 2014 #268

I remember that..recalling Bushmaster at the time: Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #215

Wall Street Firm Hasn't Sold Off AR-15 Maker Despite Newtown Promise Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #220

How awesome for you guys...touche. n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #231

I love this part... beevul Dec 2014 #223

Wrong, you might want to do some research Lurks Often Dec 2014 #227

and make lots of money on it. Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #229

Do you thank George W. Bush, also? stone space Dec 2014 #281

Might want to look in the mirror Lurks Often Dec 2014 #282

Look in the mirror? stone space Dec 2014 #283

It means that gun control extremists Lurks Often Dec 2014 #284

What does this have to do with thanking George W. Bush? stone space Dec 2014 #285

You missed the point. branford Dec 2014 #287

I think it was posted to me by mistake. stone space Dec 2014 #289

No mistake Lurks Often Dec 2014 #290

OK, a comment posted to a random gun control advocate... stone space Dec 2014 #292

A USA gun control extremist is just a normal person in most of the civilized world NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #302

USA gun control extremists are usually rude Lurks Often Dec 2014 #306

Rude LOL oh my god, the people who are against guns slaughtering people are the rude NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #311

Get back to me when you have a realistic plan to change things Lurks Often Dec 2014 #313

Are you under the impression that being "against guns slaughtering people" makes one incapable... beevul Dec 2014 #321

Once bitten... VScott Dec 2014 #238

snip* No other industry in the country benefits from such special legal protection. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #236

How are the practices of the firearms industry negligent? GGJohn Dec 2014 #237

No industry should be afforded such protection under the law..they have gained Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #239

You said the industry is negligent, I asked how, GGJohn Dec 2014 #240

Where did I say they were negligent? In regards to what..their lack of safety measures? Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #241

I'm sorry, you didn't say they were negligent, GGJohn Dec 2014 #244

A special priviledge law to protect gun manufacturers, designed by Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #246

Cities attempting to do an end run around the 2A by using SLAPP suits GGJohn Dec 2014 #248

You imagine they would allow themselves to be sued into oblivion? You can't be serious. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #250

but that is not what the objective was Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #255

I don't know that to be an accurate account of their end goal. Reagrdless, the gun lobby Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #258

If this current lawsuit is evident of anything... VScott Dec 2014 #243

Repugnant opinions like yours are rampant in this thread. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #245

"any day now" Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #247

You can read, correct? So don't quote me and then get it wrong. Those are your words, not mine. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #249

never said they were your words did I? Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #251

Then don't use quotes in your response..would appreciate that. n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #252

quote was from other DU members Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #253

You're not being asked to censor yourself..you are being asked to be accurate...not hard.n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #254

"Then don't use quotes in your response..would appreciate that" Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #256

You're serious? ok..it means, I would appreciate you not misquoting me. n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #257

well, since I did not quote you in the first place Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #261

THE TIDE IS TURNING!!! VScott Dec 2014 #259

Do you guys freak out over every single mention that your control of the Congress Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #260

"Freaking out" am I (we) now? VScott Dec 2014 #263

More relaxation, repealing of existing gun control laws, etc. Jefferson23 Dec 2014 #264

yup, gun humping freaks WON Skittles Dec 2014 #380

Some industries have received protections similar to the PLCAA branford Dec 2014 #267

Um...Tobacco? stone space Dec 2014 #275

I mentioned tobacco companies in a previous post VScott Dec 2014 #299

Make the gun manufacturer explain mmonk Dec 2014 #272

They do not control magazine size Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #276

Have them explain it. mmonk Dec 2014 #278

Why should they have to explain anything? GGJohn Dec 2014 #293

A lawyer will not be seeking that approach. mmonk Dec 2014 #297

They can try to seek that approach, but it will fail. GGJohn Dec 2014 #298

That is where we disagree. I think it will mmonk Dec 2014 #301

The PLCAA is pretty clear on this, GGJohn Dec 2014 #303

No one is claiming it is a defect. mmonk Dec 2014 #339

That aftermarket manufacturers Duckhunter935 Dec 2014 #329

So the real suit should be against the magazine maker hack89 Dec 2014 #291

The state of Connecticut, through their AWB, said the number of rounds fired was legal hack89 Dec 2014 #294

I'm just gonna hide from the inevitable shit-storm between... Odin2005 Dec 2014 #279

Regardless of outcome, I see this as a positive action LanternWaste Dec 2014 #295

The litigants reasoning for suing Bushmaster VScott Dec 2014 #300

Yeah, that's going to be laughed out of court real fast. GGJohn Dec 2014 #304

The case has been filed and the complaint is available online. branford Dec 2014 #305

Judging by what I'm reading in you post, GGJohn Dec 2014 #307

It has the potential to backfire. branford Dec 2014 #309

With the challenges to the NY & CT gun controls having been heard by the 2nd Circuit of Appeals Lurks Often Dec 2014 #312

If I had to guess, branford Dec 2014 #318

Case was filed in state court with non-diverse instate necessary party defendants Gothmog Dec 2014 #367

It will end up in federal court if not tossed out Lurks Often Dec 2014 #369

There is no diversity or federal question Gothmog Dec 2014 #372

Since neither Bushmaster or the distributor have a presence in CT Lurks Often Dec 2014 #374

You have to have complete diversity for diversity jurisdiction Gothmog Dec 2014 #376

I'm going to side with the trial attorney who has already posted Lurks Often Dec 2014 #379

"met all federal regulations and CT's assault weapons ban standards" wordpix Dec 2014 #322

CT's Assault weapons standards has more to do with the design and features of the weapon, GGJohn Dec 2014 #325

Assuming you story is accurate, how does it affect my legal analysis? branford Dec 2014 #326

nothing wrong with your analysis, just saying don't look to the state wordpix Dec 2014 #355

Discussing AR15's is a red herring. branford Dec 2014 #356

open carrying with no one checking permits is illegal in CT wordpix Dec 2014 #362

If the area is a lawful gun range, I assume the open carry would be perfectly legal branford Dec 2014 #364

Such bans almost always have exemptions.... Adrahil Dec 2014 #340

Questions, counselor. VScott Dec 2014 #327

I do not believe that the lack of reference to the PLCAA is a defect in the complaint, branford Dec 2014 #328

If negligent entrustment cases are exempted from PLCAA then why would pleading mention this? Gothmog Dec 2014 #368

I give no credence to loonies with conspiracy theories. branford Dec 2014 #371

The relevant exemption is Section 5A(ii) Gothmog Dec 2014 #373

Who did Bushmaster negligently entrust to? branford Dec 2014 #375

I read Prof. Volokh's article and he does not address the statutory issue Gothmog Dec 2014 #377

I, too, do not practice in CT, and am uncertain as to whether interlocutory appeals are allowed. branford Dec 2014 #378

Wonder if they realize the firearms weren't sold to the shooter? ileus Dec 2014 #358

FYI, here is a recent analysis of the lawsuit from Eugene Volokh at the WP. branford Dec 2014 #361