Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers

[kpete]

Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers

The families of 10 of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre have filed a joint lawsuit against the makers of the gun that killed their children.

A lawsuit filed Monday by 10 Sandy Hook victims’ families claims Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill 26 people in five minutes without his “weapon of choice,” a Bushmaster AR-15.

“The number of lives lost in those 264 seconds was made possible” by the rifle that was “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency,” according to the lawsuit against AR-15 manufacturer Bushmaster.

The lawsuit was filed Monday morning in Connecticut superior court against Bushmaster, several other manufacturers, and Riverview Gun Sales, where Lanza’s rifle was purchased.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/15/sandy-hook-parents-sue-bushmaster-you-sold-weapon-of-choice-for-mass-murderers.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

[madokie]

1. Having spent 15 months in a war setting

I see no use for this type of weapon in the general populations hands.

[shedevil69taz]

7. Which part?

The semi auto part?

or the SCURRY LOOKING black parts like GASP...a PISTOL GRIP OH GOD THE HORROR!

[madokie]

21. Buzz off

[shedevil69taz]

27. I don't think I will

I like it here

[upaloopa]

34. It didn't take much to bring out the

insulting ignorant gunner talking points. You do know innocent children were killed right? You do know that generally well intentioned people care more about children then they do about gun fetishes right?

[oneshooter]

41. And you want to "lower gun ownership"

and to help achieve this do you destroy your pistol? No, you sell it so someone else can own it. You talk a good game, but it is only talk. You place money over someones life.

Hypocrite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=155953

[951-Riverside]

67. Having spent 1 year online...

I see no use for these types of weapons in the police hands either.

[kwassa]

2. The DC sniper also used a Bushmaster.

Choice of murderers everywhere.

[brendan120678]

4. Except when it's not...

since most firearm-related murders are done utilizing handguns.

[madville]

10. Handguns are around 80% if I remember correctly

While shotguns are around 10-12% and rifles are around 8%, semi-auto rifles being estimated at 5% or less.

Handguns are used in gun-related crime at about a rate of 15-1 over rifles.

[Doc_Technical]

59. If my memory serves me correctly,

The MAC-10(11) and TEC-9 are considered "Handguns".

[madville]

60. 9mm handguns

That are no more deadly or lethal than any other 9mm handgun.

[Straw Man]

62. MAC-10 and TEC-9

9mm handguns

That are no more deadly or lethal than any other 9mm handgun.

Yes. The only real difference is that they are unwieldy and difficult to conceal. They are based on full-auto weapons, which is why they're so damned big and clunky. But they look bad-ass, which is why the uninformed find them scary.

[benEzra]

81. Because they *are* handguns.

Exceedingly clunky and harder to conceal than a regular handgun, and harder to hit anything with, but functionally and ballistically the same as a Glock or a Smith & Wesson 9mm, firing the same ammunition at the same rate of fire as any other double-stack civilian 9mm pistol.

FWIW, Intratec went out of business in 2001 due primarily to poor sales. The guns were interesting looking, but they had a reputation for jamming and I don't think they were ever very popular.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I predict this effort will fail and the families left more disappointed than before.

To blame the manufacturer of a legal anything for manufacturing and selling a legal thing, legally, is a foolish thing to do.

The fault for this tragedy does not rest at the doorsteps of Bushmaster.

[shedevil69taz]

6. Now if the gun had malfunctioned and started firing itself...

then maybe they would have a case...

[beevul]

43. The ATF certainly might. N/T

[bobclark86]

50. Umm... Ask Remington about the Walker trigger.

[shedevil69taz]

53. Yup and they settled quite a few lawsuits

and redesigned that trigger system...

[tammywammy]

15. Yes, this get thrown out quickly. n/t

[greytdemocrat]

65. Correct. nt

[shedevil69taz]

5. This kind of thing has been tried before

I would be very surprised if it has any kind of different outcome than we have seen in the past when firearm manufacturers are sued by victims families.

[exboyfil]

8. CONSIDER YOUR MAN CARD REISSUED

Nothing says being a man like gunning down children and teachers.

[aikoaiko]

9. That's a ridiculous lawsuit.

In fact, the rifle was reported to be fully compliant with CT's Assault Weapon Ban.

[NutmegYankee]

63. The law changed 4 months later to ban sales of that rifle in the state of Conn.

Existing ownership was grandfathered, hence the run to "grab one while you could".

[Sunlei]

11. good thing the cheap gun /w the 1.50 a shot high profit-rounds jammed or he would have murdered more

babies.

[onehandle]

12. Gun Apologists To Action! nt

[ArsSkeptica]

13. This isn't about gun apologists, or even gun control advocacy

This is about rule of law. The case has no merit.

You do like rule of law, don't you?

[kpete]

16. what I don't like,

is dead children


peace to you ArsSkleptica,
kp

[GGJohn]

17. Nobody here likes dead children.

[belzabubba333]

18. then stop defending the ar "child killer" 15 - assualt rifle

[GGJohn]

19. Who here has defended Lanza?

And if you mean the firearm, not defending the firearm, defending the rule of law and pointing out the fact that the PLCAA is the law that prevents a firearms company from being sued for the criminal misuse of it's product.

[tammywammy]

20. I don't own any guns

And I don't care too. I also don't like dead children. That doesn't change the fact that this lawsuit will go no where. The gun was legal a legal product. If it had malfunctioned then they'd have a case just like you don't sue Ford bc of a drunk driver.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Alcohol kills 4300 children annually. That's 4 and a half Sandy Hooks a week and that doesn't

include DUIs, drunken child abusers and FAS.

[kcr]

32. They make it pretty clear they don't give a shit about dead children n/t

[GGJohn]

35. Who makes it pretty clear they don't give a shit about dead children?

I haven't seen one comment expressing that, have you? If so, then please post the link so I can condemn it.
What we're discussing is the merits of the case, which does not translate into not giving a shit about dead children

Quite personally, I find your comment offensive, but that's my opinion.

[beevul]

46. Thats a very interesting statement.

"They make it pretty clear they don't give a shit about dead children"


They being:

The pro-gun side, who resist efforts at stupid and overbearing gun control, knowing full well that there are many other ways to protect schools and kids than banning guns,

or


The anti-gun side which seems only interested in protecting children and schools if it means more gun restrictions.


Say what you like about the pro-gun side, but don't think for a moment that the anti-gun side isn't being seen for what it is.

[ArsSkeptica]

58. Just for clarification...

...am I the "they" you refer to?

If not, and I'm being generous with the assumption that's actually the case, whatever "they" you are referring to, you reveal far more about yourself than about the party/parties you intend to demean. I reserve my cynicism for most politicians and highly visible clergy, and some but not all businesspeople, unless I know someone personally and have reason to suspect the worst of their motives. That goes for fellow run-of-the-mill citizens with whom I disagree on issues. To think that someone who disagrees with you on the issue of gun control actually doesn't care about dead children truly reflects poorly on the accuser's character. Worse than that, statements like this diminish the power of any substantial arguments that can be made in favor of gun control as it's this kind of rank emotional appeal sans rational discussion that rightly gets called out for politicking on the graves of dead children.

Lest you feel too called out, don't worry, you're in good company. The NRA/GOA, etc., typically do it to a far greater and more disgusting extent with, e.g., their calls for armed teachers and other such ridiculous non-measures.

[99Forever]

51. So, you are a judge?

I'm impressed. Where did you get your law degree and who appointed you to a court?

[ArsSkeptica]

71. *golf clap*

Did you save that one just for me, or are you going to copy/paste that to everyone who expressed a similar rational sentiment?

[99Forever]

76. You mean you aren't actually a judge?

I'm stunned to hear that after your declarative statement settling a lawsuit that hasn't even had a opening argument yet.

[Lurks Often]

14. The case will never succeed

If by some slim chance it makes through the CT judicial system, it will get tossed out at the Federal level

BUshmaster, the distributor and Riverview Gun Sales sold a product that legal in CT and the United States.

This has already been discussed at length here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=966351

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

and the only trial lawyer (that I am aware) that posted in both of those threads said the chances of the lawsuit succeeding are very low.

I certainly hope those poor families aren't paying the law firm to bring suit in a case that stands virtually no chance of succeeding

[NightWatcher]

22. Too bad they couldn't sure the government for failing to pass decent laws

I don't think the Bushmaster suit will go far. They sold a legal product. Go after the laws that allow it to be a legal product.

I think the only time you could sue a gun maker is when they make a faulty product, and as we have so clearly seen over and over again, it worked as it was intended.

[lancer78]

24. Now THAT is a case with some merit

Sue the state of CT for passing a law making it legal to sell a weapon as the AR-15. Wonder why this "esteemed lawfirm" is not doing that?

[GGJohn]

26. Because even if it did prevail in state court,

it would ultimately be dismissed upon appeal in the federal courts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. 1. The state never passed a law allowing the sale. That which is not forbidden is permitted.

2. You can't sue a government for passing or, more absurdly, failing to pass a law. That would subvert consent of the governed to private parties.

[Lurks Often]

39. Can't sue the state of CT without the state's permission

Connecticut has sovereign immunity: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0076.htm

Besides given the direction the lawyers are taking, suing CT would be suing an "ally" in this political issue.

[GGJohn]

25. The PLCAA has already passed constitutional muster.

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.

The law has been upheld several times by the courts.

[Doctor_J]

42. so has citizens United. The scotus is now the most corrupt in history

Your argument is ignorant

[beevul]

47. Do you have an alternate analysys of the law in question? n/t

[GGJohn]

49. No, my argument is fact,

care to refute that fact?

[mythology]

66. That law is a damn joke

There's no such law protecting tobacco companies. As long as the gun companies continue to sell a product that causes such damage and refuse to be responsible for their products winding up in the hands of criminals, they shouldn't have immunity. By resisting background checks, and by refusing the shut off the spigot that allows a small number of gun dealers to be responsible for a significant percentage of guns that are then used in crimes.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/opinion/bradford-gun-marketing/

The gun industry has fought against microstamping.

I find it utterly insipid that the courts have held up a law that is clearly designed to protect an industry that doesn't give a damn about the harm it causes. I would hope that people would feel the same about laws to protect oil companies, or tobacco companies or any of the other industries that fight against logical and simple regulations so they can protect their profits.

[GGJohn]

68. You don't make any sense at all.

Why should the firearms manufacturers be responsible for their product being used in a negligent or criminal manner?

Using your logic, then Ford should be held responsible becuase one of their vehicles was used in a crime or a drunk got into a Dodge Challenger and killed someone.

BTW, tobacco companies lied about their product not being addictive, chemicals added, lied to Congress,
Firearms companies have never denied that their product is dangerous if used in a irresponsible manner.

You can blame the gun control org., mainly the Brady org. for this law, they advised several anti gun mayors to try to bankrupt the firearms industry with SLAPP suits, trying to do an end run around the 2A, causing Congress to take action to prevent this.
IOW, the Brady org and mayors were their own worse enemies.

[liberal_at_heart]

57. +1

[Logical]

23. It will fail, guns are legal to make and sell. nt

[LanternWaste]

28. Win or lose the case, this will certainly keep the national conversation going

Win or lose the case, this will certainly keep the national conversation going, and I see that as a good thing. And in the end, we will have to decide whether the twenty dead children from Sandy Hook (and thousands of children elsewhere) are a price worth paying to maintain our position as the most heavily armed civilian nation (per capita and absolute) on the planet.

[aikoaiko]

31. yes, and the conversation will lead to more Bushmasters purchased.

Frankly they could use the free publicity. Bushmaster patrol rifles are selling at $700.

[LanternWaste]

36. No doubt, the NRA and the firearm industries are adept at re-branding conversations

"and the conversation will lead to more Bushmasters purchased..."

No doubt, the NRA and the firearm industries are adept at re-branding conversations to better suit their profit margins. No doubt, the conversations will lead to additional consequences not anticipated nor prophesied as of yet.

Yet at the end of the day, the fundamental question of collective cost versus collective benefit will surface, regardless of the vested interests the industry has in preventing that from happening.

[Glassunion]

33. Sadly, all this will accomplish is longer lines at the gun store.

[helpmetohelpyou]

38. Why would attorneys take a case that has no legal merit and they know will lose?

This is going to get thrown out by a judge

[benEzra]

44. Because the law firm doesn't seem to understand civilian firearms or the PLCAA?

Or perhaps they have swallowed the falsehood that an AR-15 is a "weapon of war", rather than a non-automatic civilian .22 centerfire that 40+ companies make that has been the top selling sporting rifle in the United States for many years.

At some point, someone is going to stand up in court and point out that 75% of firearms on the U.S. civilian market work *exactly* like the AR-15, that .223 Remington is the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle calibers, and that rifles are the least misused of all firearms (all rifles combined account for only 2.5% of U.S. murders, per the FBI).

I believe the full text of the filing can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/250171118/Sandy-Hook-Complaint

[aikoaiko]

45. I just noticed you are back

Seems like I haven't seen you post in a long, long time.

Welcome back.

[benEzra]

80. Thanks! Was very busy with life for a while, but things have settled down. (n/t)

[branford]

48. There is much to gain, even if they lose in court.

I explain the benefits of just filing the action in my Post #91 in the other thread about the lawsuit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=966593

[Man from Pickens]

55. It's called extortion

Plenty of lawyers do it - leverage the cost of the lawsuit to the other party into a settlement for their clients. It's standard practice.

[jmowreader]

40. The only standing they'd have is if the gun killed through failure to work as designed

They'd have more of a case if they sued Master Lock for failure to prevent Lanza from getting the gun out of the cabinet his mom kept it in, or the state for failure to keep families that have mentally unstable members from having the ability to store their guns at the sheriff's office...I think this'll be thrown out at the first trial court.

[branford]

52. 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/

[COLGATE4]

54. Volokh for the win. nt

[GGJohn]

61. Great article and spot on.

[liberal_at_heart]

56. Good for them.

[marions ghost]

64. It's like the long hard battle against tobacco companies

...you chip away...

Because basically, a lawsuit like this says--"this is wrong, we all know it's wrong, and what is going to be done about it?"

[GGJohn]

69. Nothing will be done about it, even Pres. Obama's DoJ defended the PLCAA,

and it's been ruled constitutional several times since it's inception.

[marions ghost]

70. Eventually

something WILL be done about it. Because the country can't afford not to take responsibility for the carnage that results. It is too damaging to society and to "commerce."

Other ways may be found, but there will one day be action that ends the insanity. Because it has costs that will become too intolerable. It is already hampering the healthy functioning of this society. When you become afraid of public spaces like schools, movies, and hospitals--Houston you have a problem. And festering problems eventually get to the point where they are addressed. But we as a nation will get sicker first.

thx for reply

[GGJohn]

74. You're probably right,

but it won't be in my lifetime, maybe my kids, but not mine.

[marions ghost]

75. It will take awhile

but know that it will happen.

[aikoaiko]

72. Except its not wrong to sell firearms like the AR15.

Its wrong to use it or any firearm to commit a crime, but very few are.

[marions ghost]

77. Of course it is wrong--

but that fact will not be accepted until society as a whole is more enlightened. Meanwhile, barbaric weapons freely available to nutjobs and 9 year olds.

[aikoaiko]

78. Its hardly the case that they are freely available to nutjobs and 9-year olds

Sometimes they get a hold of them, but hardly freely available.

[marions ghost]

79. "Freely available" is a fair enough expression of the current reality

--if you want one, you can get one.

The carnage proves it.

[benEzra]

82. Ummm, rifles are the least misused of all weapons...

"The carnage proves it."

You are aware that rifles are the least misused of all weapons in this country, yes?

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 12,253
Handguns............................ 5,782 (47.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,079 (17.0%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,622 (13.2%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,490 (12.2%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 687 (5.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 308 (2.5%)
Rifles................................ 285 (2.3%)[/font]

The trend in rifle homicide is down, even though the AR-15 platform has been the most popular civilian rifle in the United States for many years.

Rifle homicides, 2005-2013 (from FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2013, Table 20, collated):

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285

Anyone who is fighting to outlaw the most popular rifles isn't going after "gun violence", they are going after lawful ownership.

[ileus]

73. Also the firearm of choice for Mass Plinkers.