What can be learned from Sandy Hook?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

First and primarily, having guns and deadly weapons in a home with a mentally/emotionally unstable teenager is not a good idea. He could have a break and kill you... and others.

From the subsequent uproar and legal proceedings it can be seen that bringing a lawsuit for civil damages against the sellers, marketers and manufacturers of the weapons is not going gain anything for anyone who isn't an attorney working for either side.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=80e88e3e-2bb1-4b52-b48f-db92755328bd
The defendants moved to strike plaintiffs’ complaint based on the PLCAA. The PLCAA generally prohibits a civil action against a manufacturer or seller of firearms where the firearm functioned as intended and the injury or other harm suffered was the result of criminal or unlawful misuse of the firearm. This prohibition is subject to certain exceptions, two of which were claimed by Plaintiffs: the negligent entrustment exception, for an "action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;" and the predicate exception, for "an action where a manufacturer or seller of a [firearm] 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." While the PLCAA explicitly preserves certain claims within its enumerated exceptions, it does not create them: "no provision of [PLCAA] shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy." (Emphasis mine)

The PLCAA has become part of the US Code in titles 15 and 18. The plaintiffs in the Connecticut lawsuit have successfully argued to have their case heard in Connecticut courts rather than federal courts based on their assessment that the state courts would be more receptive to their arguments and appeals. In general, federal laws, rulings and precedents have bearing and often supersede their state level equivalents, as has been highlighted by a learned associate here: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211810) Further reading at the link to the above excerpt will detail the degree of failure in that thinking.

Returning to the topic in the subject, I infer that any and all negligence and criminal or civil liability is limited to Adam and Nancy Lanza and their estate. Further, attempts by well meaning and earnest plaintiffs and their avaricious counsel to end run the law will vanish like a gnat fart. I conjecture that if there weren't such an abundance of federal, state and local laws regarding the legal sale and transfer of firearms or if the companies involved could be shown to have broken those laws, the burden of assuring that responsible entrustment via the chain of commerce could be spread beyond the Lanzas.

I further suggest that if you don't like the rules, working to change them before they affect you will yield better results than simply breaking them and arguing later that they shouldn't apply because of your special status.

In this case, the defendants made, marketed and sold a product in compliance with numerous state and federal laws. A product protected specifically for individual ownership in the Bill of Rights. Everyone should be able to see where this was going from the start.

History is littered with the words of smart folks who've explained that individuals have a right to arms. Here's a few:
>> "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
>> "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
>> "The structure of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective one."
>> "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic..."
>> "Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even ’til the aggressor’s death..."
>> "Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
>> "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe."
>> "But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one."

[Lurks Often]

1. AL was never diagnosised as mentally/emotionally unstable

What he was diagnosed as was being autistic. Obviously with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can look back and say AL was batshit crazy, but the evidence and symptoms were likely not apparent to his mother. The mental health professionals AL saw as a child and teen either missed the symptoms, AL was smart enough to hide the symptoms, or the mental health professionals saw some of the signs, but kicked the bucket down the road because they did not feel they had enough evidence to get a judge to sign off on confining him to a mental health facility.

Sandy Hook locked the doors after the kids came in the morning, a protocol most schools seem to follow these days. However locked doors don't do much good when there is a floor to ceiling glass panel next to the doorway which he shattered with gunfire and then entered the school. I think it is possible to take some common sense precautions when it comes to school design which can improve student safety without making it look like a prison.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. I'm not implying that the mother (or any family members)...

...could or should have taken notice. I'm suggesting that, for anyone with doubts about anyone in the house, think twice before bringing any weapons in the house.

Thanks for the reply

[Kang Colby]

3. Gun control doesn't work....eom

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. "Control" of any kind doesn't work...

...and when laws are referred to as "controls" those in favor of them have been sold a "bill of goods".

Gun "control" is a myth because the only real effective control anywhere around is self-control. Laws exist as criteria to be used by the courts to judge guilt. Trying to formulate a law that will work as a control for criminals who don't wish to be controlled is like nailing jello to the wall.

[Kang Colby]

5. Which is ironic isn't it?

Because legit gun charges against criminals are often the first charges dropped or plead down by lazy or perhaps over worked prosecutors.

Only a tiny fraction of 4473 fraud is ever followed up on.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Consider this scenario

A person with known gang affiliations is arrested because his fingerprints are on a gun recovered nearby a drive by shooting. There are other partial prints on the gun but there older and smudged. The gun was reported stolen 8 years ago by someone in a neighboring town. The drive by caused some property damage to the store front and flying brick fragments wounded a neighbor's dog. Charges of 2 counts of assault with a deadly weapon regarding the store owner and a customer who was present have been filed along with various gun possession and other firearms related charges. The facts of case are thin. The defendant has no connections to the original gun theft. He isn't placed at the scene by a credible witness or other corroborating circumstantial evidence. Neither the car nor the driver have been located although a description of the driver has been given to police. The description matches another known gang member but he can't be found after 6 weeks of police work. The gun was found 9 days after the shooting and matched to bullets recovered.

At this point the prosecutor has to make a decision. It's unclear who among those present, the dog walker, store owner or customer were the actual target. None of them were injured. None has a connection to person charged. Violence isn't to be tolerate. If the case goes to trial, the guy may be found not guilty of just about everything. Should the prosecutor offer a deal of 18 months at county for a lesser charge and drop the gun charges which carry mandated minimums? It's a tough decision between a certain year and a half in the hand verses maybe 10 years in the bush, so to speak.

For the plea deal the prosecutor gets a win, the banger is off the street and points are scored with the D.A. who's up for reelection within the year.

[Kang Colby]

8. That's a tough scenario.

Their best bet is to call Matlock.


Imagine this scenario -

A gang member is picked up on a petty street bust. A gun and drugs are found on his person. He's charged with a litany of drug and gun charges - including distribution of controlled substances. The gun charges are dropped and he pleads down to possession. Out on time served in under 30.


The scenario I described is a daily occurrence in Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Felons are picked up with guns in their possession, they are charged, plea deal, charges are dropped, rinse and repeat.

I'm not an advocate of the drug war, my point is that gun charges aren't viewed as being worth the effort to prosecute.

Look at 4473 fraud. Easy to prosecute, seldom done. No one can explain that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. I can explain easily

Violent crimes involving guns are often serious and frequently deadly. Convincing a jury that lying on the 4473 should warrant more than probation when compared to a violent crime like assault.

Laws about the NICS check and many gun regulations are not known by the general population. Unlike a media circus such as a press conference with a congress critter, a trial in a courtroom affords the defense the chance to challenged and refuted made up terms like "assault weapon", implied characteristics like "extra deadliness" or "weapon of war" and can damage your credibility. Maybe you can use them in closing but I think "facts" not in evidence and anything that is simply opinion are against the rules.

[yagotme]

10. Add CHi-town to that list.

Lot of cases dropped/not prosecuted/plead down. Worked in DOC, talked to a lot of inmates who stated they were locked up on a lot lesser charges than what they actually did.

[ManiacJoe]

6. The mother being a gun owner was not the problem.

The problem was that the mother left the guns unsecured by not locking the gun safe. Had the guns been properly secured from the autistic child, there never would have been a murder followed by a school shooting.

[Eleanors38]

11. What I have learned is how deep and unrealistic the myth of control is, and how out of touch

Elites are when they continue to promulgate the outlook. If it were not for the near-hegemony among the media, with its agitprop for control, there would hardly he an outlook; even the money bags of Bloomberg would have little consequence, except to be a PETA-like distraction with which to entertain readers and viewers.

Sandy Hook, far from being a "turning point," "sea change," or "tipping point," was a revelation of the deep divisions between large segments of our population on the one hand, and on the other the shrill cries of "Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot, fighting in the captain's tower" of a shiprwreck that is gun control and the viability of the Party.