"Connecticut Judge Dismisses Newtown Lawsuit Against Gun Maker"

[krispos42]

The Newtown families lawsuit trying to hold gun companies responsible for their loved ones' deaths was thrown out by a Connecticut judge, according to court documents.

Gunmaker Remington Arms was being sued by families of children and adults killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre.

In June, a lawyer for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington Arms asked a Connecticut judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Friday, Superior Court Judege Barbara Bellis granted the motion to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the attack.

<more>

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Connecticut-Judge-Dismisses-Newtown-Lawsuit-Against-Gun-Maker--397126871.html

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was cited by the judge as the reason to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs plan to appeal.

[Eleanors38]

1. As predictable as ants in a dove field....

Now, I wonder: Who will pay for the appeal?

[underpants]

26. I have never heard that saying before

I've learned something here today.

[NaturalHigh]

52. First time I've heard it too.

[Eleanors38]

113. Be sure where you place your killed doves -- the ants find them, fast.

[Ohioblue22]

2. Yea that protection needs to go

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Why is that? n/t

[JonathanRackham]

4. Trumped up lawsuits?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. The person to whom I responded...

...wants the PLCAA gone and I was asking why. I inferred already that, if you're anti-gun, anything that raises prices or costs, involves more checks and fees or adds regulations, whether they're meaningful or not, is desirable. However, sometimes I learn something by listening to their reason(s).

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Why? Because it gives this ONE industry in our country immunity against law suits and

supersedes State laws against people aggrieved by incompetence and negligence by gun manufacturers and sellers.

And that isn't fair.

The PLCAA must go.

[hack89]

35. The law allows you to sue gun manufacturers

There is a detailed list of valid circumstances. Not sure where this notion of immunity comes from.

[branford]

36. Not quite.

First, there are other laws similar to the PLCAA. For instance, manufacturers of certain vaccines and airplane parts receive similar federal immunity due to risk of meritless, yet very expensive, lawsuits. Many states also have their own PLCAA equivalents, such as Colorado where one of the families of the movie shooter, employed by a gun control group, was ordered to pay the legal fees of the gun manufacturer and retailer under state law for a meritless lawsuit, despite ample warnings.

More importantly, the liability theories have already been tested and lost. There were hundreds of such lawsuits, and virtually all were lost at trial or appeal. Suing firearm manufacturers for gun deaths is comparable to suing car and alcohol manufacturers for drunk driving deaths. It's just legally unsound for a multitude of reasons. Fundamental products liability jurisprudence never had a firearm exception because some people hate guns.

The PLCAA was passed because certain groups, often states and localities using vasts sums of taxpayer money, were abusing the courts with nonsense nuisance lawsuits designed only to bankrupt the firearm industry with legal fees.

If other groups abused an industry involved with not only legal, but constitutionally protected products, I would support a similar immunity statute on their behalf.

What's not fair is that many gun controllers believe they have the right to abuse our justice system because they don't like a component of the Bill of Rights and are woefully unable to convince the needed democratic majorities in our country to agree to ideas.

[Duckhunter935]

40. Glad to see you posting again

As always, very well stated

[branford]

44. Thanks.

I don't often have the time, but I find certain legal matters of particular interest.

In fact, I was surprised and impressed that a local Connecticut trial judge had the political and intellectual fortitude to follow the clear law and toss the lawsuit rather than just letting the plaintiffs engage in some potentially politically damaging discovery and handing-off the mess to an appellate court.

Let's see if any gun control proponents no lament the court's "judicial activism."

[stone space]

97. Bullshit. What's not fair is that arms manufacturers are allowed to kill our kids with impunity

What's not fair is that many gun controllers believe they have the right to abuse our justice system because they don't like a component of the Bill of Rights and are woefully unable to convince the needed democratic majorities in our country to agree to ideas.

It takes a lot of gall for arms manufacturers to kill kids and then cry like a victim.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. How many drunk driving victims have auto manufacturers killed?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

149. But...

...the monkeys still control the cabana.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. re: "Bullshit"

[Littlepawkitty]

116. I would like to learn more about the "Arms manufacturings killing kids and crying like a victim."

Perhaps you could provide a link... any link... where Remington, Colt, Glock, Winchester, Luger et al, are killing children. Are they putting them out on ranges and using them as targets? Or is there some sort of gross violation of child labor laws that are causing children to die in their factories?


But if you have the information to support the claims, I'd be very interested in reading it, thank you.

[fleabiscuit]

117. It's easy if you accept the NRA as the mouthpiece for them...

The National Rifle Association's Campaign To Stop Smart Guns
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/09/the-national-rifle-associations-campaign-to-sto/199235

[Littlepawkitty]

118. So...

Arms manufacturers are not, in fact, killing kids. Rather, individuals are unlawfully using their products to commit crimes.

[fleabiscuit]

119. So...

Most kids are killed by a parents gun in their own homes, yet the manufacturers and the mouthpiece NRA fight smart gun technology.

[gejohnston]

120. they are not fighting the technology,

they are fighting government mandates before the technology works or exists. Big difference. BTW, more kids are killed on bicycles than the scenario you describe.

[fleabiscuit]

121. Non Sequitur.

And yes, they are fighting the technology. My take,

ALL Guns should be computer chipped to only operate in legally designated areas, and able to be overridden by legal authority. All POLICE weapons should be fitted with iSight type cameras and audio. All guns should have a built in “find my gun” feature to disable and recover lost/stolen guns. It is way past time for a 700 year old technology to advance to the 21st century.

In addition, guns sold to public:
~ Mandatory comprehensive universal background checks before guns are sold.
~ Mandatory comprehensive universal background checks before ammunition is sold.
~ All ammunition must be micro-stamped.
~ No fragmenting ammunition to be sold to civilians.
~ Mandatory 6 month waiting period to purchase a gun.
~ All guns and ammunition required to be stored in/with approved gun safes or gun/trigger locks at home.
~ All long guns to have fixed internal magazine of no more than 5 rounds.
~ Handguns to have fixed internal magazine of no more than 7 rounds.
~ No minors under 16 should be allowed to own or carry/handle a gun.

Including:
* National buy back program of all civilian non chipped modern guns. (paid for by gun makers)
* $50K fine for possessing working non chipped modern guns.
* $50K reward for reporting owners of working non chipped modern guns.
* Antique guns cannot be loaded or used in public space.
* Mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership.

[Littlepawkitty]

123. A bit

Authoritarian...no?

[gejohnston]

126. the technology doesn't exist

~ Mandatory comprehensive universal background checks before guns are sold.

please define

~ Mandatory comprehensive universal background checks before ammunition is sold.

please define

~ All ammunition must be micro-stamped.

technology doesn't exist and would not survive the heat if it did.

~ No fragmenting ammunition to be sold to civilians.

why?

~ Mandatory 6 month waiting period to purchase a gun.

no valid State interest, does nothing

~ All guns and ammunition required to be stored in/with approved gun safes or gun/trigger locks at home.

see above

~ All long guns to have fixed internal magazine of no more than 5 rounds

see above.

~ Handguns to have fixed internal magazine of no more than 7 rounds.

see above

~ No minors under 16 should be allowed to own or carry/handle a gun.

still no valid State interest, unless the goal is to destroy the gun culture. You are saying that kids should not learn basic marksmanship under adult supervision. No.

* Mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership.

Outside of lining the pockets of insurance companies, will do absolutely do nothing. still no valid State interest nor value for society. Most shootings are suicides, no pay outs. Most murders are criminals killing each other. They don't legally have the guns now, you think they are going to pay insurance? They don't go to gun stores now. They don't go to gun shows either. Several criminology studies over the past three decades point this out.

To be perfectly blunt, none of these will do anything to deal with our murder problem. It is about authoritarian or totalitarian social control, which is illiberal and an anathema to everything that we as liberals and Democrats should believe in.

None of your proposals are worth considering. There is no country in the world, outside of UK and some countries that have complete bans, and astronomical murder rates.
Public policy should be based on facts, evidence, and reason. Not prejudices, dogma, ideology, or emotions. When I see a logical fallacy free and valid and rational argument that supports your ideas, I will entertain them. Until then, the answer is no.
It isn't the guns, it is the culture. This German sociologist explains it better.

[fleabiscuit]

127. Microstamping is already being used.

The rest is already in the media, do your own homework.

[Littlepawkitty]

128. Where

Link please showing a manufacturer that makes and sells guns with micro stamping.

[gejohnston]

129. not on ammuntion,

in some electronic products. Just because it is "in the media" doesn't mean anything. Most people don't take the media seriously, nor should they. IIRC, it was Dr. Guber that said the media is made up of twenty-somethings who are intellectually lazy if not stupid.

I do my homework, and I don't read propaganda put out by politicians, advocacy groups, etc. For example, when Citizens United was decided, I didn't take anyone's word for it. I downloaded the decision and read it for myself. Same with Hobby Lobby, Heller, etc. Always do your own research and fact check the fact checkers. But I digress.

IOW, I didn't waste my time reading what Ted Nugent or Shannon "Monsanto Mommy" Watts said. I read the testimony of forensics and ballistics experts.
What happened was that the company who owns the technology was looking for a place to expand its monopoly market and found the scientifically and technically illiterate California legislators.

[beevul]

136. Used for what?

Where is it being used, and what is it being used for?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

139. I suggest you read up a bit

Most of what you suggest would be useful only in identifying suicide perpetrators.

[Travis_0004]

132. And this is why we get nowwhere

With demands like that, most gun owners are not willing to give up an inch.

How are you going to make gun manufacturers pay for a recall of a legal product?

What good does microstamping do? In 30 seconds it can be defeated. Or use a revolver.

You do realize batteries dont last forever. And you want to put a gps on every gun so it only works in approved locations? What about self defense at home?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

145. "able to be overridden by legal authority"

Why?

[Littlepawkitty]

122. Once more...

The manufacturers aren't active killing anyone.

BUT...You're proposing that this particular lawsuit should've went forward on the basis that they're not creating and selling weapons with "Smart Gun" technology... technology that is sketchy (logging in my phone with fingerprint is iffy), expensive (the handgun mentioned in your article is ~1800 bucks for a .22 LR), time consuming (12 seconds to pair Gun with bracelet... in home self/defense situation that's literally life or death time), with battery life a really unknown quantity. Also... these are weapons that for the aforementioned reasons, people don't want and therefore; there isn't a market for.

But... none of the above have anything to do with this lawsuit, or the law in question. So why post that here.

[fleabiscuit]

124. Again...

Auto manufacturers have paid damage for harm done from defective equipment, and consumers pay a premium for safety improvements. Gun death machines can be made safer, and the consumer may pay a premium for it, if given the chance. Or it can be regulated.

[Littlepawkitty]

125. The guns weren't defective

Are Ford, Chevy, Dodge sued when an individual illegally operates the vehicle and kills others? Either accidentally (texting while driving, thinking they were "only little drunk," or on purpose by running someone over? No, they're not. If Remington makes a shotgun that explodes after a 2-3 rounds are fired, killing the operator and others around them... then Remington can be (and will be) sued and can be (and most likely will be) liable for a defective product.

Remington isn't liable for a criminal taking a non defective gun and murdering someone with it, nor should they be.

[Eleanors38]

141. Less than 100 kids under 15yoa are killed by gun accidents each year...

Any number of deaths is tragic, and folks are doing something about it: The number killed has been falling precipitously for many years even as the number of civilian guns in circulation has gone up. Notably, the Shooting Sports Foundation has distributed some 30,000,000 firearms locks, and by now most arms are stored in safes and lock boxes, not the pretty wooden gun racks with drawers so familiar to me when young. THESE MEASURES have driven down the gun accident rate to a pale semblance of itself compared to decades earlier. In fact, far more kids are killed by drowning, falls, electrocution, poisons and other causes than by gun accident. In a time of limited resources, time would be better spent campaigning for measures protecting kids from these far greater dangers.

As for hi-tek solutions, let the development continue, and if people want them, they will get them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

142. Results

CDCs number for unintentional deaths by firearm for persons 15 YO and younger:
Calendar year 2014: 58
Calendar year 1999: 118
Calendar year 1990: 297

That's a decrease of about half or more at each step.

I'm sure technical developments will continue and safety will improve.
Information and empowerment will have greater effect than laws and protests.

[Eleanors38]

143. Even the virulently anti-gun WaPo owns up to a figure of 84 accidental deaths in 2015...

but only when you define "children" as 18 and under (the National Safety Council uses a 15 and under standard).

This is one of those very hard fact-based points the blinkered anti-gunners WILL NOT deal with rationally. And the Post leads the charge with discredited propaganda.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

144. CDCs WISQARS goes to 2014

Unintentional firearm deaths 18 and under is 89 for that year.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

In addition there are 26 firearm fatalities in 2014 for those 18 and under where the intent was undetermined. More than half of those are for persons 15 to 18 YO.

Also, I read where some doubt is being cast on the CDC figures because they're supposed not allowed to do "research". AFAIK research isn't needed to record numbers into categories as reported by coroner's offices.

[Eleanors38]

147. The "doubt" about CDC research serves more as a tip-off to the gross slant an article takes...

Last edited Thu Oct 20, 2016, 04:47 PM - Edit history (2)

A talking point, if you will, to throw against the wall whenever possible. If compiling mortality figures was research, then I should be paid $100/hr to fart around on Google search!

[Duckhunter935]

39. There are 6 exceptions

Manufacturers and firearms dealers can and are sued

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. (A) Please point to a suit or instance where...

...a case was or should have been allowed to proceed and had sufficient merit to win but was blocked solely by the PLCAA.

(B) Failing that, please detail what criminal activity in which a firearm manufacturer, distributor or retailer has participated.

(C) Failing those, please highlight current activities or practices, which is/are presently legal common for firearm manufacturers, distributors and/or retailers to engage in that you would like to be designated as criminal.

[BlueCaliDem]

48. I'm not on trial here, pal. You don't get to do deposition here with me. Awful, huh?

The PLCAA is on trial and we're seeing the effects of privilege the gun industry is receiving under that preferential law.

As for the case you want, reread the OP and then follow the link.

Then I encourage you to read about the PLCAA and the power that idiotic law has given the NRA, gun manufacturers (who pay the NRA) and gun dealers.

Now, I'm fully aware that it's not going to change gun-lovers' mind since, well, they feel a privilege no other industry is afforded in our country, but I reiterate and continue to advocate, THE PLCAA HAS TO BE OVERTURNED and CRUSHED.

And believe you me, it will be.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. thanks for the non sequitur

have a nice day

[branford]

51. "The PLCAA is on trial" ?

Would you care to explain how absent the PLCAA Bushmaster would be liable for the criminal misuse of its entirely legal, constitutionally protected, highly regulated product that was stolen from its lawful owner. As an attorney, I would be most interested in hearing a plausible products liability theory of how Bushmaster could be held liable under the current facts? Keep in mind that there were many cases before the PLCAA, although you will not like how they turned out. The very reason for the PLCAA was to circumvent frivolous lawsuits, and the law does not immunize the firearm industry from lawsuits involving true defective design and manufacture, and Remington is actually defending some at this time.

Do you realize that the rifle was fully compliant with Connecticut's assault weapons ban, did not malfunction, and Adam stole it from his mother, the lawful owner, after he killed her? Do you also realize that AR-15 rifles are the most popular type of civilian rifle in the USA and owned by millions of American without incident, and that ALL rifles account for a tiny fraction of ALL weapons used in crime.

Complaining about the PLCAA or Second Amendment really misses the fundamental point.

The only "privilege" on display is that of gun control advocates who believe they can abuse the courts, reinvent products liability jurisprudence and totally ignore the democratic process because they hate and fear a tool that is perfectly safe when not criminally misused.

[beevul]

54. Did someone say you were?

I'm not on trial here, pal. You don't get to do deposition here with me. Awful, huh?

Did someone say you were?

The PLCAA is on trial and we're seeing the effects of privilege the gun industry is receiving under that preferential law.

Not being sued for the criminal actions of a third party is a privilege'?

Then I encourage you to read about the PLCAA and the power that idiotic law has given the NRA, gun manufacturers (who pay the NRA) and gun dealers.

The power not to be sued for the criminal actions of a third party?

How exactly is that being abused?

Now, I'm fully aware that it's not going to change gun-lovers' mind since, well, they feel a privilege no other industry is afforded in our country, but I reiterate and continue to advocate, THE PLCAA HAS TO BE OVERTURNED and CRUSHED.

Why? Because you want gun makers sued out of business for the criminal actions of a third party?

And believe you me, it will be.

And our little dog too, right?

[Littlepawkitty]

137. Do you even know what the PLCAA says?

Here you go:

(5) Qualified civil liability action
(A) In generalThe term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include—

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;
(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18;
(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26.

So... it says that if a gun manufacturer (dealer, etc) breaks a law, they can be held liable. If they sell a defective product, they can be held liable....

they can't be sued because Bobby Smith legally purchased a weapon, after passing the background checks etc, and then uses the gun in an illegal fashion.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903

It appears that you want to be able to sue gun manufacturers for..making guns.

[gejohnston]

60. federal laws don't necessarily supersede state laws,

see pot laws in some states vs federal law. PLACAA applies to federal courts, state courts may vary. Either way, the lawsuit was meritless and the outcome would have been the same with or without PLACAA.

[BlueCaliDem]

62. Yes, it does - according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Always.

The law that applies to situations where State and Federal laws disagree is called the Supremacy Clause (part of article VI of the Constitution). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Supremacy

Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.

The supremacy clause contains what’s known as the doctrine of pre-emption. It states that the Federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation between State and Federal laws (and Constitutions). If a Federal and State law contradict, and when you’re in the State and you're not challenged, you can follow the State law. But if the Feds decide to intervene - as was the case with the South's Jim Crow laws - it's game over.

Whenever there's a conflict between a State law and Federal law, it's the Federal law that stands. For example, those egregious Jim Crow laws (which forced the U.S. Gov't to step in) I've mentioned above, same-sex marriage laws, and the Federal regulation prohibiting the use of medical marijuana, as you've pointed out. Even if a State regulation allows it, but it's challenged in a Court of law, the Federal law prevails.

I'm truly surprised that far too few Americans know this.

I don't know if the lawsuit was without merit. I haven't seen or read all the evidence the Plaintiffs wanted to present. The PLCAA was used to immediately strike down the lawsuit before the merits were litigated. The judge should've just allowed the suit to move forward and let it fall for lack of merit, if that's the case. But that's not what happened here. The PLCAA was used to throw the suit out. And that's a shame.

[gejohnston]

63. it was without merit because

Remington had nothing to do with the murders. The same logic would be the victims of the terrorist attack sued whoever made the truck years prior to the attack. With or without PLCAA, it would be dismissed just like Brady Campaign suits did before PLCAA.


The DEA can go bust medical pot stores all they want, but they can't order local cops to do shit to help them. See the tenth amendment.

[BlueCaliDem]

75. Unless you've seen all the evidence that Plaintiff planned to introduce, neither you nor I can say

with any absolution that the case had no merit. That's why the judge should've allowed the case to move forward. As it stands, Plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling, so they must believe they have legal standing - or they're just trying to make a statement. We'll see.

You're right. The DEA - a Federal entity - can bust whatever, wherever in the 50 U.S. States where there's a violation of Federal law. 'Busting' MJ stores is not the issue. The issue is, if they get those owners of MJ stores into Federal court, it's over for their business because MJ is still illegal under Federal statute. This is why we need to make recreational MJ LEGAL via the U.S. Congress that covers all fifty States so we won't have this confusion anymore.

In closing, I'll reiterate: Federal law always supersedes State law, pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

[gejohnston]

78. I know the evidence,

it amounted to people are too stupid to own guns, and wave a couple of advertisements Lanza probably never saw. Remington didn't even own Bushmaster when the gun was purchased. It was sold by a licensed manufacturer to a licensed wholesaler, to the wherever mom bought it in accordance with all federal and state laws. Under the law of that state, it wasn't an "assault weapon". An "assault weapon" is whatever some politicians decide. In New York, the target pistols used in the Olympics are banned as "assault weapons".

Also, the gun was stolen years after it was manufactured and purchased, and Remington had nothing to do with it. That makes it meritless on its face. They are simply trying to make a statement, just like a SLAPP suit. The Brady Campaign doesn't care because they hired contingency based ambulance chasers, the type that advertises during Jerry Springer. If it is a "loser pays" the people the Brady Campaigned conned into suing will get stuck holding the bag, just like Colorado. It doesn't take a legal degree to figure that out.

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Thanks for your opinion. I wasn't asking for it, but thanks anyhow.

I'll side with the families of the slaughtered victims over gun manufacturers and their perceived immunity. But I guess that's where you and I differ. Oh well.

[branford]

85. What evidence?

Before a case can proceed to trial, a plaintiff must establish a viable claim in their complaint. As a litigation attorney, I have successfully moved to dismiss many a meritless lawsuit.

The facts and details of the Sandy Hook shooting are well known, including the fact that the rifle was fully compliant with Connecticut's assault weapons ban, it did not malfunction, it was lawfully purchased by Lanza's mother who easily passed all federal and state requirements to own a firearm, and Adam stole the rifle after killing his own mother. It is also a fact that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle platform in the USA, owned by millions of Americans and used without criminality, accident or malfunction many millions of times every year for entirely lawful purposes including hunting, sport and self-defense. Lastly, ALL rifles account for a tiny proportion of guns used in crime.

If you actually read the complaint, you'll quickly realize that Plaintiff's allegations amount to little more than claims that any weapon with a military pedigree (i.e., virtually every firearm every made) is too dangerous for civilian ownership. Plaintiffs are essentially demanding that the courts ban all semiautomatic rifles, and establish a foundation to ban all other guns, in contravention of the Bill of Rights and many decades of established products liability jurisprudence (particularly with respect to proximate cause issue and criminal misuse of an item by third-parties), as well as totally circumvent the democratic legislative process where such decisions are properly made.

Lastly, Plaintiffs' theories of liability are nothing new or novel and have been tested with far more advantageous than those of Sandy Hook. Dead children, while certainly very tragic and useful for emotive appeals to legislators, do not lower the standards which must be met in court. Don't forget that there were hundreds of lawsuits before the passage of the PCLAA, and the lack of merit and success of such litigation was the primary motivation for the limited immunity provided now by the statute.

[Littlepawkitty]

140. I'll take "what this guy said"

For $1000, Alex.

[Eleanors38]

114. False. Remington or any other gun seller is subject to product liability actions.

What they are NOT subject to is being "ONE industry" where you can file spurious law suits based on hocus-pocus. Look at the track record of past lawsuits (which attempted to graph on a tobacco lawsuit model to go after arms manufacturers): Perfect winless seasons. The law was passed to PREVENT singaling out one industry in an attempt to penalize it via frivolous legal actions, as in so-called SLAPP suits. So in a manner of speaking, you've got it backwards.

[Nancyswidower]

6. Why?

[Ohioblue22]

9. Because until they can get sued the won't do a thing about making them safer

[gejohnston]

12. no it isn't

that is just disinformation put out by the prohibition lobby.
In fact, gun companies have been more responsible than car manufacturers in this regard. My Walther pistol has three safeties and a loaded chamber indicator, which is something Walther has been doing for a century. Is it required by German law? No. When Smith and Wesson developed the transfer bar safety to make revolvers drop safe. Did Eisenhower sign a law requiring it? No.

What it really is a variation of an SLAPP suit. The difference is, you target an industry you don't like drive them out of business fighting meritless lawsuits. The gun industry isn't the only industry protected. Can't get a law passed? Sue them out of existence. That is why the Brady Campaign came up with the idea. Of course, they always lost the trial, but some gun store who broke no laws, who sold a gun to someone who later became a burglary victim, and the gun was passed to the drug connection, who used it in a drive by.
It goes like this. Billy Bob's Pawn and Gun sells you a gun. Ten years later, the gun is stolen. Three years later, it is recovered at a crime scene. The ATF traces it back to the gun store and found that it is listed as stolen in NCIC. What does the Brady Champaign do? Sue Billy Bob even though he sold it legally and within ATF regulations, and state and local law. Or, they sue the manufacturer, who also committed no crime and did everything ATF regulations.

Please define safer? What is your experience in mechanical engineering and firearms design? A Heckler and Koch engineers started their own company to make a smart gun. It was a very expensive pistol that didn't work. They sold zero in the EU, including the native Germany. Sports shooters didn't want it, police didn't want it. They got a license to export it to the US only after they failed there, only to find political resistance, besides the expense and not working that well. Smart guns are a cool idea, I would like Jame's Bond's custom Walther P99 too, just not anytime soon.

[Ohioblue22]

24. Maybe your correct there's just no way to make them

Safe so you understand now why they should be banned . They are just too dangerous and there is no incentive for manufactures to do improve the safety of their product . We just need a correct version of an improperly interpreted 2nd amendment ruling.

but there is little point debating since neither of us are in charge . My original point is that the protection law should go they are not doing enough to improve safety and they fight like hell to squash any attempt at legislating safety. So let them be sued

[Duckhunter935]

28. They fight like hell about mandates for technology

That does not work yet and take away choice from consumers. Funny how you are against choice. If there is such a huge market for safe guns, the manufacturers will build them. Like autobraking and other non mandated sensors for cars. Government only requires a couple of airbags, consumers want more, manufacturers put them in due to market demand.

[Ohioblue22]

31. I'm all for choice but but kids don't get to have heroin

No matter how much they want them. Grown men don't get to have sex with 15 year olds . I can't own a tank. Im not allow to own a dog without it being registered. I cant go fishing with dynamite.
Society decides some choices are better left regulated or made illegal

[Duckhunter935]

33. You can own a tank

Many people do indeed. Heroin does not have any positive use that I know of. I think prescription drugs drugs need to be more regulated, they kill much more people and I would bet more children then semi-automatic rifles. Firearms are highly regulated with the thousands of federal, state and local laws and ordinances. How about we fund and enforce them, ok?

[beevul]

55. Yes, you can indeed own a tank.

And in most places in America, one needn't register a dog.

[deathrind]

81. The technology does work.

But the gun activists see it as threat.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-the-gun-lobby.html?_r=0

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/maryland-dealer-will-defy-gun-rights-advocates-by-selling-nations-first-smart-gun/2014/05/01/564efa48-d14d-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

[branford]

89. Gun rights proponents see the technology as a threat

precisely because it's in its infancy and states like New Jersey are nevertheless trying to make it mandatory now.

However, if you believe the technology is indeed sufficiently mature, you should have no problems convincing legislators in gun control-friendly states like California, New York and Illinois to require all state and local law enforcement in their jurisdictions, the people responsible for their own safety, to only employ "safe" weapons. President Obama could even order his Secret Service detail to only use safe weapons as a model for the nation. Why do you think this has not yet occurred?

[gejohnston]

29. no.

Safe so you understand now why they should be banned .

statistically, they are close to being the safest items on the market. You mention children. More kids are killed in bicycle accidents than with guns. BTW, scores of studies by criminologists show more people prevent harm with a gun than are harmed by someone armed with one.

They are just too dangerous and there is no incentive for manufacturers to do improve the safety of their product .

Yes there is a huge incentive. Some companies, especially in Europe, have been experimenting for decades. The technology hasn't been there. If there wasn't any incentive, why do companies, and even individual gunsmiths in the flintlock era put safeties on to begin with? Figerprint scanners are on electronic devices, and they work only in ideal situations. Guns are mechanical, and can be used in less than ideal situations. Imagine the Detroit cop in the winter who has to pull his gun in December, but can't defend himself because he is wearing gloves. Same with a German cop. They are dead. The James Bond's custom Walther was cool, I'd buy one if it showed up at a gun store. I thought the Lotus Espirit that turned into a submarine, different James Bond movie, was pretty cool too, but it won't at a dealership near me.

We just need a correct version of an improperly interpreted 2nd amendment ruling

What? Heller interpreted it correctly. Back then, the concept of collective rights did not exist. Also, their brand of liberalism puts the individual above the group or State.

[Ohioblue22]

32. Please spare me the false equivalence examples

And I don't agree with heller or the other one. But like I said there's no point going on with this. You want to make excuses to protect your guns and I don't .
I think the gun manufacturers lawsuit protection should go. Like lawn darts they started hurting people that company didn't enjoy those same protections


After a recent serious injury caused by a lawn dart, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reissued its warning that lawn darts are banned and should be destroyed. Effective on December 19, 1988, CPSC banned the sale of all lawn darts in the United States.

[Duckhunter935]

34. I do not think lawn darts

Were a constitutional right, am I wrong about that?

[stone space]

61. Lawn Darts aren't mentioned in Holy Scripture, huh?

I do not think lawn darts

Were a constitutional right, am I wrong about that?

[stone space]

91. Why are you posting Libertarian propoganda here on DU?

Reason TV???

Seriously???

WTF???

[stone space]

94. Not interested on your Libertarian propoganda videos. Go away.

Is anything in the video untrue? nt

[Ohioblue22]

100. Right depends on interpretation. the 2a only applied to a militia if it was needed to secure a free

State which it isn't therefore the 2a went extinct. The only thing extending those rights were provided by scotus interpretation and not the constitution. Like scotus said “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

But I am am allowed life liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and If I need lawn darts to make me happy then perhaps it is , it all depends on interpretation

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

101. It is rather clear that the Founders intended everyone to be "the militia"

As such the codified protection offered by the 2A is reasonably interpreted as a right of individuals and the militia clause a supporting justification. The Marbury v Madison decision famously included that "It cannot he presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". The 2A protects both the right of the individual and the effective capability of the militia.


Acknowledging that It is '...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.' many limitations, including some which vary from state to state, have been found Constitutional. The application of the RKBA is validly modified by state and federal laws found to be Constitutional. Criminal exercise of the right is not protected behavior.


You should have your lawn darts. You may need to manufacture your own but that should not be restricted.
If enough pro-lawn dart folks would organize and challenge the regulation, I feel that a court would decide to allow their sales.
I don't have any such interest but don't object to that of others. I don't mind if you smoke. I don't mind if you drink alcohol. If, in order to enjoy your pursuit of happiness, you need to drink and drive, you'll need to do it on private land with the owner's permission or take your chances with due process. Same story if you need to go 80 in a 45 zone.

While the concept of a right is generally unlimited, its application in society never is. You can't yell "fire" in a theater. Well, you can in certain circumstances: if there really is a fire, if the theater is empty except for yourself or maybe if you're on stage acting and the announcement is part of the script. In the strict sense of the word, you can yell fire anywhere you like, but you may face the consequences. The only real control there is self-control based on consequences. Similarly, gun-"control" is mostly the same.

[hack89]

104. Parts of the Constitution don't go extinct

They remain the law of the land until they are repealed.

[branford]

37. The Second Amendment is not the issue.

Even under the Heller and MacDonald rulings, a broad range of firearms restrictions are permitted, including many existing regulations under federal, state and local law such as prohibitions on felons, domestic abusers and those adjudicated as dangerous from possessing firearms.

There aren't more restrictions because you and other strict controllers cannot convince a majority of democratically elected representatives in Congress and most statehouses to implement additional firearm restrictions. Whether you realize or acknowledge it or not, guns, whether for sport, protection or hunting, are popular with a tremendous number of Americans, including many Democrats, in many parts of the our country, and gun rights are a culture war battle among largely liberal and urban populations versus more conservative and exurban individuals.

As for your safety arguments, you misunderstand and misconstrue products liability law. Would you care to explain how most firearms are unsafe when used as designed and intended in compliance with the law. As a general proposition, we don't seriously restrict the rights of tens of millions of peaceful and law abiding Americans because a statistically tiny group illegally misuses a product.

[gejohnston]

57. there is no false equivalence.

I don't care if you agree with it or not. Some people don't agree with climate scientists or that evolution is real. It doesn't mean the two aren't real. The history and scholarship clearly is on my side when it comes to Heller.

Lawn darts should have never been banned.

[deathrind]

83. You make good points.

Kudos for trying but it is pointless because much like those who still support trump common sense does not apply.

Points that do apply.

People would use a rock or knife or stick to kill anyway so why not a gun.

It's a right silly rabbit.

There are so many guns out there nothing would make a difference so do nothing.

Guns don't kill people. It just sits there much like a syringe filled with heroin until picked up.

[Straw Man]

53. Safe?

Maybe your correct there's just no way to make them

Safe so you understand now why they should be banned . They are just too dangerous and there is no incentive for manufactures to do improve the safety of their product .

You do understand that a gun is an implement designed with the capability to inflict injury or death, right? A gun that isn't capable of doing that isn't a gun. The Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to own such an implement. The criminal code circumscribes their use thereof.

The deaths at Newtown were not the result of a faulty product. They were the result of a criminal act.

[stone space]

58. Good Lord! The product pumped bullet after bullet into child after child.

The deaths at Newtown were not the result of a faulty product.

If the product wasn't faulty, then the manufacturer needs to be tried and jailed as an accessory to murder.

Calling it a faulty consumer product is putting the best possible spin on it, from the point of view of the manufacturer.

It's the spin that keeps the manufacturer out of prison.

[beevul]

66. That was the individual that did that.

Unless you think beer hard liquor and vehicles are the actual perpetrators when it comes to drinking and driving.

By your logic, beer hard liquor and vehicles could be gone after under RICO because they're working together.

[stone space]

68. What is it you find funniest about children's bodies being pumped with bullets from an AR-15?

[beevul]

70. What is it you find honest about falsely attributing the source of my humor?

[stone space]

84. You chose a post about bullets being pumped into children and laughed.

I don't know why I'm still shocked at the behavior of those who defend the NRA.

I shouldn't be shocked.

I should be used to it.

[branford]

87. The NRA was not a defendant in the Sandy Hook lawsuit

and constanting harping about them does not constitute substantive discussion, and certainly doesn't provide a legal analysis of the failing of the lawsuit regardless of the PLCAA.

Similarly, implicit attempts to shut down discussion by with claims that it disrespects or mocks dead children is ludicrous and juvenile. The deaths at Sandy Hook were undoubtedly tragic, but they do not alter the fundamental democratic process or decades of established products liability jurisprudence.

One doesn't need to support the NRA to realize the expected near impossibility of holding a highly regulated company who produces a legal (and constitutionally protected) product that functions as designed and intended liable for the criminal misuse of someone who stole such product. This is true whether the discussion concerns auto and alcohol manufacturers and drunk drivers of stolen cars or Adam Lanza's decision to kill his mother, steal her legal rifle, and then use it to murder children.

[stone space]

88. Fuck the NRA, fuck the PLCAA, and fuck the NRA's sexual predator candidate.

[branford]

90. You obviously missed the point of my entire post.

If you actually want to convince others of the merits of your position, you need to realize that screeching "fuck the NRA" or lewd sexual insults concerning gun owners does not constitute a substantive refutation of any gun rights argument, and worse, makes you look like an unhinged ignoramus when you repeat them again and again. Whether you realize it or not, you're the flip side of certain conservatives who believe they can outlaw abortion by yelling "fuck Planned Parenthood" and accusing the majority of Americans of being baby killers.

[stone space]

92. It's the NRA that is trying to force a sexual predator on America.

Their guns give them an extreme sense of privilege and entitlement.

[branford]

95. You appear to be confusing the First and Second Amendment and

vastly overestimating the power and reach of the NRA.

First, the NRA, just like everyone else, can support any candidate they wish for any reason they want. The NRA, whose sole purpose is to advance gun rights and proficiency, supports Trump because they quite correctly believe he's a stronger supporter of such rights. The First Amendment does indeed entitle them to speak and act to protect the Second Amendment, including support for idiots like Trump.

Moreover, the efforts that you and others undertake to make the NRA their gun control boogeyman are absurd. The NRA has about 5 million members among 80-100 million legal American gun owners. Blaming an organization than represents about 5% of gun owners for the myriad of gun control failures are little more than constant exercises in denial. Any power or influence the NRA does possesses is because significant numbers of Americans agree with their positions, and if the NRA didn't exist, another one of the multitude of gun rights groups would simply take their place.

[stone space]

96. Significant numbers of people disagree with the NRA on their support of sexual assault.

Last edited Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

significant numbers of Americans agree with their positions

Significant numbers of people disagree with the NRA on their support of racism.

Significant numbers of people disagree with the NRA on their support of xenophobia.

Significant numbers of people disagree with the NRA on their support of misogyny.

Significant numbers of people disagree with the NRA on their support of islamophobia.

Significant numbers of people disagree with the NRA on their support of domestic terrorism.

Significant numbers of people disagree with the NRA on guns.

Like the GOP, the NRA has used this election to openly expose it's true values and beliefs by choosing Trump over America.

And we can see the truth of what the GOP and the NRA is.

[Eleanors38]

115. Uh-oh. Sounds like a clams casino moment.

[beevul]

102. Thats a very poor attempt at spin. Heres why.

You chose a post about bullets being pumped into children and laughed.

Thats a very poor attempt at spin. Heres why: Everyone can see for themselves that I was laughing at your 'logic'.

I chose your post which used poor logic, and laughed at the poor logic being used.

You may not be aware of it, but misrepresenting the words and sentiments of others around here just doesn't fly.

Feel free to keep on doing so, and I'll feel free to keep on pointing it out.

[Straw Man]

108. Clearly you don't understand what "product liability" means.

If the product wasn't faulty, then the manufacturer needs to be tried and jailed as an accessory to murder.

Calling it a faulty consumer product is putting the best possible spin on it, from the point of view of the manufacturer.

It's the spin that keeps the manufacturer out of prison.

So you think the manufacturer of a legal product should be liable for the criminal misuse thereof? If a shotgun blows up and kills several people at a skeet shoot, that's a faulty product. If an AR rifle malfunctions and goes full auto, causing the shooter to lose control of the weapon and inadvertently kill a bystander, that is a faulty product. When somebody deliberately and maliciously uses a rifle to commit murder, that is not a faulty product; it's a malfunctioning human being.

Yeah, we get it -- you want guns banned. But your persistent distortion of logic is starting to border on the comical. Don't you realize how much it undermines any credibility your side might hope to claim?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. re: :...your persistent distortion of logic is starting..."

Starting???????????????????????

[benEzra]

23. The small-caliber competition rifle that the Newtown shooter stole from his mother....

is one of the safest rifles on the market, with one of the best and most robust manual safeties out there, and one of the safest in the event of a case rupture. It's also one of the safest to customize, since the headspace is determined by the barrel extension itself and not by the receiver-barrel interface.

The gun control lobby doesn't want to ban AR-15's because they're not safe, or because they're powerful (they're the least powerful of centerfire rifles), or because of their rate of fire (ROF and capacity are the same as a Ruger Mini-14, which they say they don't want to ban), or because of their rate of misuse (rifles are the least misused of all weapons). They want to ban AR-15's because of their looks, primarily the shape of their handgrips.

[branford]

38. I *mostly* agree.

I would only add that the gun control lobby wants to ban the AR-15, not just because of its appearance, but rather because they believe it would be a very good start on the road to a total firearms ban.

The incrementalist approach, just like Republicans often proposed abortion clinic "safety" regulations, is a common political strategy. Gun rights groups are not ignorant and will vehemently fight against such tactics just as we do against comparable conservative strategies to restrict abortion rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

99. Further wasted effort, distraction and pandering

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Judge-tosses-Sandy-Hook-gun-manufacturer-awsuit-9971983.php
"While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision, this is not the end of the fight," said their lawyer, Joshua Koskoff. "We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening."

It's obvious to most of us that the only general violence prevention efforts that actually improve public safety are sentences of life in prison/no parole. It's obvious to the perspicacious that "control" is a myth.

[ileus]

103. A little good news in these dark days...