Newtown victims' families sue maker of gun used in 2012 attack

[uhnope]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The families of nine people killed in a 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school sued the maker of the gun used in the attack on Monday, saying the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose.

While the AR-15 assault weapon used in the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School was legally sold in Connecticut, the lawsuit contends that the weapon should not have been available to 20-year-old gunman Adam Lanza. The AR-15 is manufactured by Bushmaster, a privately held company based in Windham, Maine.

Lanza shot dead 20 first-graders and six educators in the Dec. 14, 2012, attack, which stands as one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The massacre sparked a fresh debate on gun rights, which are protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible," Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. "It's negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/15/us-usa-connecticut-shooting-idUSKBN0JT1QQ20141215

---

Let's not forget that the RW CT talk show assholes who called the shooting a "hoax" are still on the public airwaves

[PeteSelman]

1. That's pretty dumb.

That's a case that will go nowhere. You can't blame the manufacturer because some lunatic killed a bunch of kids.

[msanthrope]

60. You sound concerned. nt

[PeteSelman]

106. Odd. Because I'm not.

Just commenting that I thought it was a frivolous lawsuit.

They can put the gun company out of business or it can get laughed out of court. Either way, I don't care.

[Jefferson23]

2. "This immunity does not apply to a claim based on negligent entrustment," Koskoff said.

Kick their ass straight to hell...all the best wishes for their success.

[GGJohn]

5. How does he figure negligent entrustment?

Negligent entrustument on the part of Nancy Lanza? On Adam Lanza? Where's the negligent entrustment on the part of Bushmaster?

[Duckhunter935]

7. will not answer that one

[GGJohn]

8. I'm trying to figure out why this law firm thinks they have a case they can win?

They claim that these weapons should have never been allowed for civilian use, yet they're legal to manufacture and sell to civilians, so how is Bushmaster "negligent entrusted'?

Well, regardless, the PLCAA is pretty damn clear on this, this lawsuit won't even see the inside of a courtroom

Wish branford was here, he can explain it alot better.

[Duckhunter935]

10. Negligent entrustment

Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor (Bushmaster)) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (the entrustee(The mother)) with a dangerous instrumentality (legal rifle), and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. The cause of action most frequently arises where one person allows another to drive their automobile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_entrustment

How does that even fit? The entrustee (mother) did no harm. She was murdered and the son unlawfully took the rifle. Help on this Lawyers out there.

actually I think my first statement is wrong. the "entruster" would be the retail seller not the manufacturer. So this fits even less to their argument.

[branford]

93. Thanks for the shout-out.

Discussing firearms issues on DU is little more than an exercise in hitting one's head against a wall. Opinions will not change, everyone is an armchair lawyer, insults and recriminations are exchanged among the same posters, etc.

The legal issues were already extensively explained to Jefferson23 and others in the prior thread. We all are now just repeating ourselves.

As I note in my Post #91 in this thread, I doubt very much that the plaintiffs' attorneys really expect to win the lawsuit, but they likely still believe that they might have something to gain, and very little to lose.

[Jefferson23]

9. It's a 40 page suit..we only know what he has said today.

..saying the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose.



"This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible," Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. "It's negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public."

*Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (the entrustee) with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality.

[Duckhunter935]

11. The entrustee is the mother

She did no harm.

[Jefferson23]

15. Obviously, this firm does not agree with you and they have no history of pulling stunts as part of

their practice.

[Duckhunter935]

18. They have to start somewhere

Wonder who is paying the bill?

[Jefferson23]

25. lol, in your dreams. n/t

[GGJohn]

28. Naw, more like in their dreams, which will turn into a nightmare for them.

[Jefferson23]

33. uh huh. They have you and your group worked up enough. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

36. Not worked up

just making points as we are allowed to.

[Jefferson23]

37. Sounds like points of fear to me but whatever. n/t

[GGJohn]

43. Not worked up or fear, just pointing out the facts as we see them, and the fact

that the PLCAA will play prominently into this lawsuit as it's written.

[GGJohn]

12. If that's their argument, then they're going to lose big time.

The AR-15 is perfectly legal to manufacture and sell in these United States, they're not a military weapon, they're a semi auto rifle, they operate the same exact way as my .22 semi auto rifle, they're they most popular center fire, semi auto rifle in the US, they're a great modular platform, they can be adapted for numerous things, like hunting, home defense, target shooting , competition shooting, etc..

This sounds more like a political stunt than anything else.

[Duckhunter935]

13. You are correct nt

[GGJohn]

3. Think PLCAA.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105

This lawsuit will be dismissed very quickly, the PLCAA was crafted to shield the firearms industry from just such a lawsuit.

[jberryhill]

110. Think 7th Amendment

[GGJohn]

111. Think PLCAA.

PLCAA was crafted for exactly what the plaintiff's are attempting to use to sue.

[jberryhill]

112. So what? Has its Constitutionality ever been challenged?

If so, please cite the case in which its Constitutionality was confirmed?

If not, then you'll have to give up on the silly notion that an untested statute is the be-all and end-all of claims purportedly barred by it.

You may not understand this, but statutes can be challenged. They don't all stand up. Perhaps you've never heard of this remarkable aspect of US law, and I would encourage you to find out more about it.

[GGJohn]

114. Ask and ye shall receive.

Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.biggamehunt.net/news/plcaa-upheld-us-supreme-court

PLCAA Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center's appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA is the 2005 federal law passed by Congress in response to the flood of reckless lawsuits brought by the Brady Center on behalf of anti-gun mayors seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.

This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday's Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center's failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms -- a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.

The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father's unsecured service pistol. The case was originally dismissed by a Chicago trial court, subsequently reinstated in part by the Illinois Court of Appeals, and then ultimately found to be barred under the PLCAA by the Illinois Supreme Court. By its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to consider the Illinois Supreme Court's well-reasoned decision that held the PLCAA was both constitutional and clearly applicable to this lawsuit.

Anything else?

[NYC_SKP]

4. This effort is likely to fail. Will disappoint the families when it does.

And if successful, the proceeds will go disproportionately to the lawyers.

[Duckhunter935]

6. Will not go anywhere

as it was a legal product that complied with federal laws and the even more strict AWB in effect at the time in Connecticut. The rifle was legally purchased and background checks were completed prior to the sale.

"This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible," Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. "It's negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public."

And the Lawyer would be lying on this as the rifle is not the same design as a military version that is not available to the general public. The rifle is a civilian semi-automatic rifle that operates identical to all semi-automatic rifles for sale to the general public. The rifle is also the best selling semi-automatic rifle and is suitable for hunting and other lawful shooting activities.

The manufacturer is not responsible for criminal misuse of the product. They would be better to go after the state for allowing it to be sold in the state.

[derby378]

14. A couple of points...

1. The AR-15 was initially designed for military use by Eugene Stoner while working for ArmaLite. The basic design of the civilian AR-15 is not that much different from the military M16 and M4 when you remove full-automatic fire from the equation. Having said that, however...

2. A wide variety of pistols have also been designed for military use. Shall Koskoff be turning his attention to these pistols next? He'd better invest in Maalox if he does.

[Fred Sanders]

19. Since the lawsuit is about a very specific weapon I think the lawyers will not take you up on your

legal overreach/extension.

[Duckhunter935]

31. which was never ever designed by Bushmaster

for the military. The weapon was based on the best selling civilian semi-automatic rifle on the market.

[derby378]

32. I dunno...

...seeing that a well-regulated militia needs to be equipped with actual militia weapons, this case will probably have a short shelf life.

You could make a better case of going after the specific dealer instead of the manufacturer.

[Duckhunter935]

39. or the state that allowed the weapon to be sold

Reading the article, they seem to be suing the whole chain the rifle traveled except the state and the murderers family trying to find the deep pockets for themselves.

[derby378]

45. They're trying to use lawyers to pull an end run around legislators

The idea is that if you make it too much of a financial risk to sell an AR-15 at a gun shop, then it won't matter if the House and Senate never pass another gun law.

It's not that far removed from using the courts to overturn laws against gay marriage, except that GLBT Americans are still entitled to equal rights under the law.

[Duckhunter935]

48. Same as the abortion TRAP laws

amazing they do not see the tactic is identical.

[onehandle]

59. Your argument is flaccid.

Small and shriveled.

[Duckhunter935]

61. Oh yes, the penis reference

so predictable. Civil dialog can be so hard to come by with outstanding arguments like that one. I am very impressed with it.

Funny, I just posted a prediction about your post about 5 minutes ago. Thank you.

[onehandle]

70. Penis?

So this is a medical forum?

Premature evaporation?

[VScott]

119. You certainly have a one track mind

[img][/img]

[Fred Sanders]

16. Selling a weapon to civilians designed for military use is a tort, negligence, I like the logic.

Most of the armies of the world would kill to get the weapons sold at American stores as readily as bananas.

[GGJohn]

17. The AR-15 operates the same exact way as my .22 semi auto,

one pull of the trigger=one round fired.

The PLCAA is written for exactly this type of frivilous lawsuit, it will be dismissed PDQ.

[Fred Sanders]

20. What part of the known fact THIS weapon was designed and intended to be a military weapon eludes you?

This one to be precise:

http://news.yahoo.com/families-2012-connecticut-shooting-victims-sue-gunmaker-local-161153323.html#

[hack89]

22. What rifle was not originally designed as a military weapon?

Those "hunting rifles" we hear about killed millions during two world wars.

[Fred Sanders]

26. By your logic the original gun was a rock.

[hack89]

30. Nope - talking about bolt action 30 caliber rifles

That became the standard military rifle across the world. After WWI they became the most popular civilian hunting rifles as millions of ex-service members wanted to own the rifles they were most familiar with.

Do we ban all rifles with military origins?

[Duckhunter935]

34. do not forget pistols

My 1911 is next

[Adrahil]

128. Fred... you're being rather selective.

Firearms, WITHOUT A DOUBT, were originally designed and used as military weapons. However, they were rapidly adapted to civilian uses of various kinds. Up until the last few decades, it could even be argued that the weapons available to civilians were SUPERIOR to the weapons used by the military. While every cowboy in the West was using a Winchester lever-action repeater, the best militaries in the world were still using single shot rifles.

And heck, civilian AR-15's don't even include the real defining feature of the an "assault rifle": the select-fire switch.

[GGJohn]

23. What part of this is a standard semi auto weapon that operates the same exact way

as any other semi auto weapon?
What part of it's a perfectly legal weapon to manufacture and sell in the US?

What part of the PLCAA didn't you understand?

[Adrahil]

125. Since you're obviously an engineering expert...

Can you even explain the design features that make this weapon useful exclusively for military purposes?

Can you even describe how an AR-15 works?

[Fred Sanders]

129. Can you describe how your logical engineering works?

[Adrahil]

131. Hey, you're the one claiming what the design purpose is....

...I would assume you'd be intimately familiar with how the gun works and be prepared to identify what makes it different from any other semi-auto rifle, from a design point of view.

Or perhaps you're just referring to its bed-wettingly terrifying appearance.

[Fred Sanders]

134. Yeah, I know how it works, you squeeze a finger, 3 year olds could kill with it. Was that sarcasm?

[Adrahil]

138. Fred, you're better than that.

Don't get sucked into outcome-based reasoning.

If you're gonna claim that the weapon is unsuitable for civilian use because it was designed as a military weapon, then you need to need actually back up that argument, rather than just getting snarky about it.

The fact is, other than LOOKING scary, it is no more a military design, from a functional point of view, than any other magazine fed semi-automatic rifle. If you want to make the argument that ALL magazine fed semi-auto rifles are military weapons, good luck in the courts.

[branford]

133. That's easy . . .

It's scary, black, and propels metal at velocity.

I also believe that when it's in your possession, it projects thoughts into your mind and compels you to indiscriminately murder, particularly children, as well as engage in perverse and deviant sexual activities with it. At least that what I heard from many here on DU . . .

[Fred Sanders]

140. Sure makes killing anything easier, does it not? Squeeze a finger...dead...now that is power you can

fall madly in love with.

[ileus]

136. I can't believe I sold my G20

At the time I didn't reload so a 10mm didn't make much sense. Now I can reload my own 10's or buy a 40 barrel and reload 40's. Best part is I can roll my own hunting rounds for the 10mm now and use it as my woods sidearm, or actually hunt with it.

I would love a 226 as a mate to my 220...I ditched my 229 for the 220 early this year.

[Fred Sanders]

141. Gun loving gobblygoop, the love of the gun is an obsession, I get it, and I am unimpressed by

your totally useless gun loving trivia.

Gun control is a progressive issue, how can you gun obsessed folk be ones?

[GGJohn]

142. Yeah?

And just saying, you don't get to determine what's progressive or what's not.
Skinner has allowed pro 2A Dems to post here, if you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

[Fred Sanders]

143. I think perhaps it amuses the mod, Skinner is it? I got no problem with that, the problem is the anti-gun

control stance that is all things not on the progressive agenda. Unless the NRA agenda got adopted yesterday? Not on any agenda I have seen or seen voted on by Democrats in Congress, remember that?

So, yes, I do not get to decide, of course not silly bunny, it was decided for me and I agree with the progressive, liberal, fact loving gun control platform of MY party and my
President and my Senate and House leaders, yes,....I do.

You can dissent all you like, understand your dissent is dissent, your are off the platform.

Thank Skinner for me, the trip into the gun loving brain is abhorrent but it is enlightening...keep your enemies closer.

[hack89]

21. According to that logic the state is responsible

Because they legalized the sale of and assumed regulatory responsibility for such weapons through their AWB. How can the manufacturer be sued for selling a gun that the state says is perfectly legal and is not an assault weapon?

[Fred Sanders]

29. Same reason you can sue the maker of an air bag, for cause......state said it was OK to own, right?

[hack89]

35. The airbag manufacturer sold defective products

They did not operate as designed. The government has never said that defective airbags are ok to sell.

[Fred Sanders]

38. Exactly. This military based and designed weapon was not sold as designed. To kill

enemy soldiers.

[Duckhunter935]

40. was not a military weapon

I know you have a problem with that small fact but it is a FACT

[Fred Sanders]

46. I love facts, thank you.

"The AR-15 was initially designed for military use by Eugene Stoner while working for ArmaLite. The basic design of the civilian AR-15 is not that much different from the military M16 and M4 when you remove full-automatic fire from the equation."

See post above, not even my research.

[Duckhunter935]

54. The make and model in question

was never a military weapon.

[hack89]

41. The state of Connecticut disagreed with you

You can't pass a law that legalized something and then sue the manufacturer for selling that product if it meets all legal requirements.

[Fred Sanders]

47. Tobaco?

[hack89]

52. The tobacco companies were sued for deceptive advertising

They lied about the addictive properties of tobacco.

You cannot argue that gun manufacturers lied about the dangers of semiautomatic rifles.

And of course they are still selling tobacco.

[Fred Sanders]

27. Militaries throughout the word will be flocking to trade in their military grade rifles for these?

[Duckhunter935]

44. no, you are right

and they will not for a civilian bushmaster either since it is not military grade.

[hack89]

49. So if I put wooden furniture on a semiautomatic rifle it would be ok

As long as it is not black and plastic looking?

[Fred Sanders]

50. As long as your furniture was not designed for military use, I guess.

[hack89]

53. So caliber and rate of fire are irrelevant?

All that matters is how they look?

[Duckhunter935]

55. seems so

http://www.precisionfirearms.com/19.html

Walnut does not look bad

Seem to have a lot sold out

[BuddhaGirl]

117. Don't the military and police require training on these assault rifles?

I believe they do!

But not for civilians?!?

These guns do not belong in the hands of civilians. There's just no use, no justification.

[beevul]

121. Apples and oranges.

"Don't the military and police require training on these assault rifles?"

The rifles that military and now so many police use, are either fully automatic continuing to fire as long as the trigger is held down, or three round burst, which fires 3 rounds for each pull of the trigger. They are generally not in civilian hands to begin with, with the exception of 10,000 (?) or so made before 1986.


The rifles generally in civilian hands, are semi-automatic, which means they fire a single shot for a single trigger pull, just like any other repeating firearm.


If that's what you want outlawed, well, good luck. Semi-automatic weapons probably constitute the bulk of privately owned firearms in America.

[BuddhaGirl]

144. Big deal

"The rifles generally in civilian hands, are semi-automatic, which means they fire a single shot for a single trigger pull, just like any other repeating firearm."

I don't care if the assault rifle is fully or semi automatic...they don't belong in a civil society imo. Yes, I know my it's futile to wish for a more civilized society without these killing machines but one can hope.

[Adrahil]

124. ANY army in th world get better than a semi-auto Bushmaster.

This is just a medium powered cartridge in a semi-automatic rifle. There is nothing magical or particularly powerful about it.

[Fred Sanders]

127. It is immensely powerful, as are all semi- automatics with large capacity ammo assault type rifles are.

Just ask 20 children and six teachers Sandy Hook about it's lack of power......Which is why the love affair for some folks, the power held at the twitch of a finger is an immense attraction for some folk.

[Adrahil]

130. Is it deadly? Sure. Any rifle is.

But it's not "immensely powerful." It's a small arm. It ain't magic. And since it doesn't have selectfire as an option, it's NOT an assault rifle.

So... you looking to ban all semi-automatic magazine-fed rifles? Is that where this goes?

[Fred Sanders]

132. Yes, it goes exactly as it went in Australia to arrive where Canada is now, yes, now you get it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Good

Fuck the gun manufacturers and their gullible spokes-shitheads.

[GGJohn]

51. Here we go again with the insults.

Why is it that the pro 2A members here are more civil then the opposition?

[Duckhunter935]

57. really surprised it took that long

lets see how long till the other references start.

[BeyondGeography]

74. Haha, love that...you see nothing wrong with laws that allow Adam Lanza access

to an arsenal like this and YOU'RE the civil ones:

FIREARMS

Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:

Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun

Found in Lanza Home:

Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol

Lanza Savage Rifle
The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother.

MAGAZINES

Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:

Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
10 30-round .223 magazines
6 30-round 9mm magazines
6 30-round 10mm magazines

Found in Lanza Home:

Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets

AMMUNITION

Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:

20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
90 rounds of 10mm ammunition

Lanza AR-15
The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Found in Lanza Home:

Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
31 .22-caliber rounds
Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
Two Win 9mm rounds
Small box of miscellaneous rounds

http://csgv.org/blog/2013/adam-lanza-took-didnt-take-sandy-hook-elementary/

[GGJohn]

75. Please point out where I ever said that?

Oh wait, you can't, because I didn't.

[BeyondGeography]

77. Oh, you have a problem with Connecticut's gun laws?

Two days of listening to you uncritically invoke George W. Bush's NRA wet dream law must have dulled my senses.

Do tell. Which piece of the arsenal should have been off limits?

[GGJohn]

78. Did I ever say that?

Oh wait, I didn't.
As long as all those weapons were CT legal, and were stored according to CT law, then I don't have a problem with it.

[BeyondGeography]

79. Tada...you don't have a problem with a situation that can reasonably be called insane

That's offensive to many people here. They find it uncivilized. So you get called names every now and then.

Surprise, surprise.

[GGJohn]

81. What's insane about collecting firearms?

Just because it's offensive to you doesn't meet the definition of insane.
Were those weapons CT legal? If so, then what is the problem?

Personally, I don't give 2 damns if it's offensive to some here, we don't all see eye to eye on every issue, that would be boring.

[alcibiades_mystery]

83. Some people blithely accept the murder of our children on account of their pathetic toy hobby

Then congratulate each other on their own "civility."

In a hundred years people will shake their heads that anyone ever spouted such "civil" nonsense. It's only too bad that so many will have to die in the interim. We're governed by cowards and clowns.

[GGJohn]

84. Who here has blithely accepted the murder of our children?

BTW, firearms aren't toys.

[beevul]

104. It was murdering his mom that allowed him acccess...

It was murdering his mom that allowed him access to the guns he used, not "the law".

[Sundome]

101. +1000

[petronius]

56. Second verse, same as the first!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=964351

[branford]

91. Exactly.

I was thinking about commenting on numerous posts in the thread, but then reconsidered. I've already offered my opinions, legal and personal, numerous times in the prior thread. This thread appears to contain virtually all the same posters, few care to discuss the actual law and relevant jurisprudence at play in the case, the firearm issue is inherently divisive and far too personal to some, we'll likely learn nothing new about the case for months, and the additional insults directed at fellow members of DU, particularly concerning genitalia is, at best, puerile and lazy.

I will note, however, that that plaintiffs and their attorneys likely do not believe the lawsuit, especially against the manufacturer, is likely to succeed as a matter of law. Just because a lawyer files a case, does not mean they really expect to win.

There are still viable reasons for the action. First, they believe they have nothing to lose. With a Republican Congress, conservative Supreme Court, and polling for gun rights at an all time high, the political and legal climate for major control measures will not improve for the foreseeable future, nor will a very public tragedy like Sandy Hook, with so many sympathetic victims, be soon repeated. Accordingly, if activists wanted to try to challenge gun-related laws like the PLCAA, it's really now or never. As Rahm Emanuel stated, "never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Second, sometimes a loss in court creates opportunities for political gain. In the very likely event the lawsuit is dismissed against the manufacturer, activists will use the loss to gain notoriety, help form solidarity among gun control groups, and use any momentum to lobby for repeal of the PLCAA and passage of additional control measures. I expect to repeatedly hear that "things must change," and it must be done "for the children." This type of strategy worked to ensure passage of measures like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, although I do not believe this tactic will now prove effective.

Third, just filing the lawsuit, and the ensuing press coverage, regardless of outcome, is a means to keep the issue in the news and prevent the demobilization of many gun control advocates in response to changes in Congress and disadvantageous polling. It's one of the few ways that activists can demonstrate that they are "doing something," which is critical for fundraising and organizational efforts.

[GGJohn]

92. So if I'm reading you correctly,

this is more of a political stunt?

BTW, love reading your posts, very knowledgeable and I learn alot.

[branford]

94. Thank you for the kind words.

As I indicated before, the complaint reads like a gun control press release, and the attorneys and plaintiffs, who are clearly gun control activists, have something to gain and very little to lose. Given the current legal and political climate and extrapolated trends, I, too, would consider filing such a lawsuit if I were in the plaintiffs' position. There's nothing wrong with trying a Hail Mary lawsuit under these circumstances, and to the extent such conduct is not sanctionable (an unlikely prospect in state court), political considerations are always at play in lawsuits that have constitutional implications.

I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if the state trial court sided with the plaintiffs, regardless of the law, since they are state residents, highly sympathetic, and gun control is popular with many CT voters. The threads on DU if defendants lose their initial motions to dismiss will be most amusing, and totally irrelevant. This matter, for good or ill, will only be resolved in the state or federal appellate courts.

[Seeking Serenity]

122. How does this lawsuit not meet the level for Rule 11 sanctions? (n/t)

[branford]

126. I actually believe it might meet the threshold for Rule 11 sanctions.

I certainly would never want to sign similar pleadings if I was in federal court!

That is why I specifically noted the case was filed in Connecticut State court where sanctions are far less likely to be issued or upheld on appeal. I doubt any elected state trial judge would sanction the parents of massacred children, despite the fact the complaint represents little more than a political stunt by their counsel. In fact, as I also mentioned, I would not be totally shocked if the assigned trial judge denied the inevitable motions to dismiss, and just passed the buck to the appellate courts.

[onehandle]

58. Gun fetistishs line up to defend their codpieces.

Limp noodles.

[hack89]

62. Why are you so fascinated with my junk?

It is not a healthy obsession.

[Duckhunter935]

64. does seem to have some

kind of obsession, might want to seek some professional help.

[Duckhunter935]

63. nice to see more name calling

That is very civil and helps the pro-control side out immensely.

Is this the meaning you have?

A codpiece (from Middle English: cod, meaning "scrotum&quot is a covering flap or pouch that attaches to the front of the crotch of men's trousers and usually accentuates the genital area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece

limp noodle Weak individual - a person of weak character, weak physical constitution, weak mental constitution, or all three.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=limp%20noodle

Bravo, very creative namecalling

[onehandle]

65. Are you saying that there are 'gun fetisists' at DU?

How does this fetish work?

[Duckhunter935]

71. No but you did in your

previous post "Gun fetistishs line up to defend their codpieces."

were you not talking about posters in this thread?

[onehandle]

73. ...

[GGJohn]

76. Yeah, so? It's a standard flight suit, just like I used to wear when I was in the Army.

[GGJohn]

66. You sure do seem facsinated with limp...................

Why is it that the pro 2A members here are much more civil than those such as yourself?

[onehandle]

67. Are you saying that 'pro 2A' is akin to a vascular malfunction?

Please explain.

[GGJohn]

68. Are you saying that you don't have a fascination with limp........... and cod pieces?

Please explain.

[Adrahil]

139. Why is every post by you about penises? Penii? No, pretty sure it's penises.

If you have a serious argument, make one. These posts are silly.

[cstanleytech]

69. While I am not a supporter of having these types of weapons on the streets I believe

that this lawsuit will fail as there isnt anything in the constitution that stipulates that a gun has to have a reasonable civilian purpose also if that was the case the feds would never have allowed it to be sold in the first place.
My sympathies for the family though and I hope the gun manufacturer shows them the same and doesnt counter sue for the companies legal costs.

[GGJohn]

72. +1000.

Best post yet.
Thanks for the reasonable comment.

[Jefferson23]

80. Newtown School Shooting Anniversary Photos: Connecticut Still Reeling From Sandy Hook Massacre

By Morgan Winsor @MorganWinsorIBT on December 15 2014

What began as a brisk December day in Newtown, Connecticut, ended in the deadliest mass shooting at a high school or grade school and the second deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history. Dressed in black fatigues and a green military vest, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot his way through the locked front entrance of Sandy Hook Elementary School with a Bushmaster AR-15 on the morning of Dec. 14, according to a report from the State's Attorney of Danbury.







http://www.ibtimes.com/newtown-school-shooting-anniversary-photos-connecticut-still-reeling-sandy-hook-1757012

[SunSeeker]

82. Rachel Maddow had a great segment on this lawsuit tonight.

The Newtown families' lawyer she interviewed, Josh Koskoff, said they found a way through the gun manufacturer immunity statute. I hope he's right and they win. They are exceedingly deserving plaintiffs, and the defendants are greedy pieces of shit that peddle to civilians military weapons designed for mass killing.

[cstanleytech]

85. To be honest

regardless of what the lawyer thinks he might have found (and I am saying this as one who is personally opposed to these types of weapons being sold) if the weapons are legal under the current laws I do not believe that they will prevail.

[GGJohn]

86. Correct.

As long as there was no design flaw, a malfunction of the weapon causing injury or death, or the company didn't do anything illegal, then I highly doubt that this lawsuit will prevail.

My theory is that Mr. Koskoff is attempting to scare the makers of the Bushmaster into settling before it goes to civil trial, in the years before the PLCAA, that might very well have worked, but not these days.
I suspect that the lawyers at Bushmaster are getting ready to submit a writ of dismissal based on the PLCAA and current law that allows these rifles to be sold to the general public.

[SunSeeker]

95. Good thing you're not the judge hearing the case. nt

[cstanleytech]

96. Right back at ya :)

[GGJohn]

97. The judge will rule what the law is.

Which will be this law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105

[branford]

98. Trial judges ignore the law all the time,

particularly state trial judges in controversial matters of political significance.

Do not be surprised if the CT trial judge denies any or all of the anticipated motions to dismiss, regardless of the law, and if the matter actually goes to trial, for the jury to side with the very sympathetic plaintiffs. This is why we have appellate courts and, in this instance, possible resort to the federal courts concerning the federal PLCAA immunity statute. The judge assigned to the case may end up being an excellent and honest jurist, but the issues in the case will not ultimately be decided at the trial level.

[GGJohn]

102. Got it, thank you,

Ultimately, the lawsuit will most certainly fail in the end.

[SunSeeker]

99. That immunity provision is not airtight.

No law is.

Judging by the frenzied, repeated postings in this thread by you and the usual small group of gun defenders, it appears you fear that to be the case.

[branford]

103. The immunity provision is actually comprehensive and relatively "airtight."

The PLCAA was actually designed to prevent the very type of lawsuit being brought by the plaintiffs, and there are additional legal hurdles such as causation that the plaintiffs would have to overcome in order to prevail even without the defendants' presumed legal immunity.

Moreover, if you believe simple discussion constitutes a "frenzy," no less an expression of "fear," it speaks far more about you than anyone else.

Other than referencing the plaintiffs' counsel appearance on Rachael Maddow, an extremely partisan and sympathetic venue, and general support for the plaintiffs and opposition to firearms, do you have anything substantive to offer about the PLCAA or products liability and related negligence jurisprudence, and how it may apply to the specific facts of this case?

[SunSeeker]

108. You must not think it's that airtight if you're talking causation.

I posted on this thread just to point out the excellent piece Rachel did on the lawsuit. Then I got swarmed by the usual crowd. I have a different opinion than you do. Get over it.

[branford]

109. Did you actually read my post?

I was quite clear that I referenced causation to note that even without the broad and comprehensive immunity provided by the PLCAA, there are other ample grounds to dismiss the lawsuit. These grounds, along with PLCAA immunity, will all be raised in the anticipated motions to dismiss, just like any other negligence lawsuit, and I would be not be surprised if the court (or appellate courts) choose to dismiss the lawsuit on these more limited grounds, thereby permitting other plaintiffs with a better case and fact pattern to attempt to challenge the PLCAA at a later date.

With regard to the Rachael Maddow segment, what exactly made it so excellent? Could you describe the attorneys explanation of why this case is actually an exception to the PLCAA, other than objections to firearms, the Second Amendment or the PLCAA itself, and did Maddow actually challenge the attorney or just permit him to give the equivalent of a press conference in a supportive forum? I assure you that the oral arguments and certain appeals will not be in as amicable settings as an MSNBC interview with a gun control supporter. Do you define "excellent" as simply agreeing with your point of view?

You are certainly free have any opinion on any topic you wish. However, without actually offering the basis of you opinion, no less providing any relevant experience or expertise or engaging in substantive discussion, there really isn't much to "get over." Your demands are also amusingly odd considering that you hyperbolically describe any challenge to your position as "swarming," "frenzy," and "fear."

[X_Digger]

87. *yawn* Seems the statute of limitations was about to expire. Ah well.

Someone's gotta try to get some money.

Legal theory's shit, but someone may pay to make it go away.

[GGJohn]

88. I wouldn't thinks so with the protection of the PLCAA,

if they settle, it'll just encourage others to attempt more of these frivilous lawsuits.

[X_Digger]

89. Definite hail mary pass, in any case. n/t

[GGJohn]

90. It is.

And like most hail mary passes, it'll be swatted away in the end zone.

[Sundome]

100. Amazing how the guns at all cost crowd gets defensive over this lawsuit.

I'm surprised they aren't all denying sandyhook every happened - which their ilk is doing on so many other sites and showing us how delusionally crazy they are.

[GGJohn]

105. Yeah, keep on believing that.

[riversedge]

107. Gun makers have special immunity--is what is being challenged.

Maddow reporting on past gun cases ....
Well worth the time to listen.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/bush-era-ban-on-suing-gun-makers-challenged-373091395510


The Rachel Maddow Show 12/15/14

Bush-era ban on suing gun makers challenged by Sandy-hook families


Rachel Maddow reports on some of the precedents for suing gun makers over gun violence, a ban on doing so signed by President Bush, and the case being made against Bushmaster Firearms by Sandy Hook families that could prove to be a game changer.
Up next in: Guns on msnbc

[jberryhill]

113. It's surprising how many people here don't quite understand that

Passing statutes is a lot easier than having them hold up against a challenge.

Much of this thread is a circular argument assuming, for reasons not stated, that the statute in question does not violate the 7th Amendment.

[branford]

115. What the heck are you talking about?

The PLCAA has been upheld on numerous occasions. A simple Google search would reveal such obvious information.

For a detailed overview of the law from the Congressional Research Service, see https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42871.pdf

Heck, even the Obama administration concedes that the PLCAA is constititional, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/obama-justice-department-badger-guns

In the Sandy Hook case, the plaintiffs are attempting to argue that virtually all semiautomatic or military origin rifles (the majority of all rifles in use today) and large magazines are inherently defective and therefore too dangerous for civilian ownership. This is precisely the type of SLAPP action that the PLCAA was designed to prevent. The complaint may also be subject to dismissal on other grounds besides immunity ranging from the Second Amendment to basic causation.

[riversedge]

120. That lawyer (forgot his name) sure sounded convincing

to me on the Maddow show the night. Keeping finger crossed. In solidarity

[branford]

123. Any good trial lawyer can sound convincing, particularly in such a friendly venue.

I would have been shocked if he was not smooth and personable.

The problem is he doesn't need to convince you or Rachael Maddow. He needs to compete with equally talented lawyers representing the defendants and trained and experienced judges who are aware of the law. Win or lose, the case will then be reviewed by appellate justices, likely with even more experience.

The attorney's claim about the purported inherent dangerousness of semiautomatic rifles in civilian hands is also not the most relevant issue in the litigation. Rather, he must specifically prove that he can satisfy all the requirement of a negligence action, including matters like causation and duty, and far more importantly, overcome the immunity provided to defendants by the PLCAA.

[VScott]

118. No Maddow, they didn't "win"...

they settled out of court.

Big difference.

[hughee99]

116. They would do better to sue the legislators for not passing a law preventing

the sale or ownership of this weapon. In either case, I don't think they have much of a chance of winning.

[branford]

135. FYI, here is a recent analysis of the lawsuit from Eugene Volokh at the WP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/lawsuit-filed-against-gun-manufacturers-and-dealers-over-sandy-hook-murders/

[aikoaiko]

137. I wonder if this strategy may completely backfire on the anti-gun crowd

There is already a legal test described in US vs Miller as to whether or not gun control can be applied to a firearm.

That test is whether the firearm has any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

Now that I think about this more, I welcome this lawsuit.