Ct. parents suing Bushmaster.

[Ishmael]

The company that manufactured the rifle that Lanza used to murder his mother and the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The suit asserts "Wrongful Death" and the basis is "The lawsuit claims the gunmaker, the firearms distributor, and the store that sold firearm are liable for producing and selling a weapon unfit for civilian use."

I see this as an expensively "going nowhere" suit. The rifle was legally manufactured and legally sold. Functionally it is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle on the market.

I wonder if the the prosecution of the suit the plaintiffs are going to define exactly what firearm(s) are "fit for civilian use?"

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They'll go down in flames.



Bet the lawyer is going pro bono in exchange for the publicity.

 

[kbate]

The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - will make this an uphill battle for the plaintiff.

if it's not a positive defense outright, it certainly puts law on the side of the defense.

 

[Ishmael]

They'll go down in flames.



Bet the lawyer is going pro bono in exchange for the publicity.

Pretty much how I read it. A grab for the brass ring. They may prevail in the local court but the appeal is going to be a bitch. Further, I believe (have to check though) that there is a federal law in place to protect manufacturers against just these sorts of suits.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The defense is four-armed...



Damn those conceal-carry laws!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Pretty much how I read it. A grab for the brass ring. They may prevail in the local court but the appeal is going to be a bitch. Further, I believe (have to check though) that there is a federal law in place to protect manufacturers against just these sorts of suits.

Ishmael

The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - will make this an uphill battle for the plaintiff.

if it's not a positive defense outright, it certainly puts law on the side of the defense.

We still have to run it by the cracker and the colonel.



I can just see both sides of the case now...



Where's FlamingoBlue when you need a useful tool?

 

[Wat_Tyler]

http://www.political-humor.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/its-because-im-black-isnt-it1.jpg

 

[kbate]

They could try for Jury Nullification of the federal law. (and in fact that might be their only hope).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*

 

[Ishmael]

I was right.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

They could try for Jury Nullification of the federal law. (and in fact that might be their only hope).

And how would that work on appeals?

Ishmael

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The company that manufactured the rifle that Lanza used to murder his mother and the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The suit asserts "Wrongful Death" and the basis is "The lawsuit claims the gunmaker, the firearms distributor, and the store that sold firearm are liable for producing and selling a weapon unfit for civilian use."

I see this as an expensively "going nowhere" suit. The rifle was legally manufactured and legally sold. Functionally it is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle on the market.

I wonder if the the prosecution of the suit the plaintiffs are going to define exactly what firearm(s) are "fit for civilian use?"

Ishmael

They'll get a face-saving settlement.

 

[Ishmael]

They'll get a face-saving settlement.

No they won't. The manufacturers will never allow that precendent.

Ishmael

 

[Wat_Tyler]

The problem the libs always come up with in suing the firearms industry is, they're not that big and their pockets aren't all that deep.


The Clintonistas were thinking of going after them like they did Big Tobacco until they discovered this.


And they had to wrap their heads around needing to buy AKs from Russia to arm the military if they put Colt outta bizness.

 

[miles]

If the suit were to succeed it would open the door to all kinds of lawsuits....the car manufacturers would be out of business.

 

[vizio]

Hell I hope that everyone that loses a loved one due to a DUI sues the liquor industry the car manufacturers.

 

[Ishmael]

If the suit were to succeed it would open the door to all kinds of lawsuits....the car manufacturers would be out of business.

Pretty much. A 14 year old unlicensed kid steals a Caddy and runs it into a crowd at 80 miles an hour. Then the relatives sue GM for "Wrongful Death?"

I would call into question the sanity of the judge that ever allowed such a suit to proceed.

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

Dunno what Connecticut products liability law is like, but I cannot imagine that lawsuit surviving summary judgment. The products are fit for their intended purpose, which does not include mayem (though they are particularly fit for that, too).

And even if Connecticut law recognizes the claim, it seems like the plaintiffs would first have to establish the guns are like sawed-off shotguns, i.e., outside the Second Amendment, to get anywhere.

 

[Ishmael]

Dunno what Connecticut products liability law is like, but I cannot imagine that lawsuit surviving summary judgment. The products are fit for their intended purpose, which does not include mayem (though they are particularly fit for that, too).

And even if Connecticut law recognizes the claim, it seems like the plaintiffs would first have to establish the guns are like sawed-off shotguns, i.e., outside the Second Amendment, to get anywhere.

My thoughts exactly. That precedent came down in US v. Miller in 1939. In that ruling the SCOTUS specifically stated that the firearms MUST be suitable for military use.

I would also expect the defendants to jump straight to the Federal courts if the state judge allows this to proceed. I'm hard pressed to see it go to trial right now.

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

My thoughts exactly. That precedent came down in US v. Miller in 1939. In that ruling the SCOTUS specifically stated that the firearms MUST be suitable for military use.

I would also expect the defendants to jump straight to the Federal courts if the state judge allows this to proceed. I'm hard pressed to see it go to trial right now.

Ishmael

I think Miller is on shaky ground.

 

[Ishmael]

I think Miller is on shaky ground.

That may be but I don't see a lower court overturning it.

Ishmael

 

[cjh]

That may be but I don't see a lower court overturning it.

Ishmael

Agreed.

I'm pretty certain, though, that I've read a history of sawed-off shotguns being used historically in the military.

And Miller doesn't address the individual right of self-protection.

Sawed-off shotguns have no value in protecting a home or small business?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No they won't. The manufacturers will never allow that precendent.

Ishmael

Depends on how big a pay day the parents demand. I imagine theyre suing the school board and cops and everyone.

 

[Skiddles2014]

Americans, if they aren't shooting someone they're suing someone.

 

[JohnnySavage]

They'll get a face-saving settlement.

No they won't. The manufacturers will never allow that precendent.

Ishmael

In a lawsuit over the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings that killed 10 people in 2002, Bushmaster and a gun dealer agreed to pay $2.5 million to two survivors and six families in a 2004 settlement. It was the first time a gun manufacturer had agreed to pay damages to settle claims of negligent distribution of weapons, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.