Sandy Hook vs Remington Arms

[dan_bgblue]

Judge dismisses Sandy Hook families' lawsuit against gun maker
(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/15/judge-dismisses-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker.html)

The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.

Advocates for gun control and against gun violence have criticized the law as special protection for gun makers. It became an issue in the presidential campaign this year when Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic nominee, criticized then-challenger Bernie Sanders for his support of the law in 2005. Sanders, a Vermont U.S. senator, is now backing a bill to repeal the law.

[CitizenBBN]

Was just coming to comment on this case.

This is why it's true Hillary wants to ban guns. She is supporting repeal of this protection (as is Sanders now), and that is pretty much all that stands between the anti-gun zealots and the 2nd Amendment.

That law was passed b/c they were starting to systematically sue the gun industry out of business. If that law is repealed then no gun company, distributor or FFL can stand against the Soros funded lawyers who will descend on them. it will be a matter of time before there are no guns made and no guns sold publicly.

Does that sound extreme? yes, and it's also completely true. At a bare minimum the prices of them will through the absolute roof, but I'd say it will shut down new production and store sales. Then all they have to worry about is reigning in "loopholes" in private sales.

the concept of negligence has been increasingly distorted into "someone got hurt, someone has to write a check", and there will be plenty of juries and legal bills to make it happen.

Ironically the place where negligence has been committed, in Hillary's handling of national security, they were able to bribe and graft their way out of it.

[CitizenBBN]

BTW, I'm hoping that Sanders loses his seat over his change. Vermont is liberal but pro-gun.

[suncat05]

If this applies, then how about auto manufacturers being held responsible for vehicle crashes and any damages/injuries? Exact same idea, just a different product. Going beyond that, how about we make candy manufacturers responsible for people being obese and diabetic.........this is that 'slippery slope' we keep talking about.

[CitizenBBN]

If this applies, then how about auto manufacturers being held responsible for vehicle crashes and any damages/injuries? Exact same idea, just a different product. Going beyond that, how about we make candy manufacturers responsible for people being obese and diabetic.........this is that 'slippery slope' we keep talking about.

It's exactly the same as suing Ford for a DUI fatality.

But dont' think those days aren't coming. They'll claim there is breathalizer tech that can be put in cars to keep them from starting, and this car didn't have it, so it's Ford's or Chevy's fault.

We've already seen some lawsuits over food that is bad for you, as well as regulation.

If someone is negligent that's certainly actionable, but if someone makes something and we all know what it is and what it does and they misuse it, that's not on the product. So if they make a car they know is failing then yeah, sue their butts off, but if they make a perfectly good car and a guy uses it to run people down that's not on them.

The argument in this case was a real contorted attempt to get around the law. Here's a good link on the arguments used:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20161014/connecticut-judge-grants-immunity-to-bushmaster-in-case-seeking-to-gut-the-plcaa

The crux of the article:

The plaintiffs in the case tried to avoid the obvious problems the PLCAA presented for their claims by citing one of the law’s exceptions for “negligent entrustment.” This requires a plaintiff to show that the seller of the product knew, or reasonably should have known, that selling the product to a particular recipient created an unreasonable risk of harm.



In the Newtown case, none of the defendants sold or supplied a firearm directly to the ultimate perpetrator. Instead, the firearm was sold to his mother, who passed the legally required background check. The perpetrator, however, subsequently killed her and stole the firearm he then used in his crimes.



Nevertheless, the plaintiffs claimed the defendants were negligent for entrusting any member of the general public with the Bushmaster XM-15E2S (an AR-15 variant) used in the crime. Despite the fact the firearm was perfectly legal to sell and own under federal and Connecticut law at the time and that AR-15s are America’s most popular and fastest-selling rifles, the plaintiffs insisted that “civilians are unfit to operate AR-15s.”

If the judge had let this go forward then it's saying all AR sales are negligent, despite Congress saying the weapon is legal to make and sell. Activism at its best. Thankfully the judge was responsible to the actual law.