A judge just dealt a blow to a big gun-maker being sued over the Sandy Hook massacre

[hue]

Source: Business Insider

A Connecticut judge on Thursday rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against the maker of a gun used in a 2012 elementary school shooting that killed 20 children and 6 adults, the Hartford Courant reports.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), gun-makers are not liable for crimes committed with their products.

However, in a blow to the maker of the Bushmaster AR-16 semiautomatic rifle, Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that law wasn't enough to have the case thrown out right now at this early stage, according to the Courant.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-judge-just-dealt-a-blow-to-a-big-gun-maker-being-sued-over-the-sandy-hook-massacre-2016-4

[hack89]

1. So the judge throws the case out at a later stage.

The lawsuit accuses the Remington Arms Co. and other defendants of negligently selling to civilians a weapon the plaintiffs claim is suitable only for the military and law enforcement. At a hearing in February, Bridgeport lawyer Josh Koskoff argued against dismissing the case, saying the lawsuit's claim of "negligent entrustment" is an exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

But Judge Bellis ruled on a narrower issue, agreeing with the plaintiffs that she has jurisdiction to continue with the case, but not ruling on whether the federal law blocks the plaintiffs from pursuing their claim.

"At this juncture," Bellis wrote, "the court need not and will not consider the merits of the plaintiffs' negligent entrustment theory."

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-dismissal-denied-20160414-story.html

[Darb]

7. Did the alarm go out?

Must have.

[hack89]

11. Dammit - how did you find out! Foiled again! nt

[Darb]

13. When the sun comes up ................

you know the rest.

[hack89]

15. It is good to know what I have to when I want to talk to you

just post in a gun thread and there you are.

[Darb]

16. I am in lots of threads, you are not.

You are in the gun legislative threads, or gun judicial threads, but never in the guns as public menace threads.

[hack89]

23. So tell me - is your hair shirt tailor made or off the rack? nt

[Darb]

27. Whatever, just call them as I see them,

and your slip has been showing for years.

[hack89]

30. That's nice

see you around.

[Darb]

36. Bye for now.

Just curious, have you gotten to where you can hit it in six? I bet you can.

[George II]

17. You seem to be happy about that.

[hack89]

28. Yes I am

the gun manufacturer broke no law.

If that gun was too dangerous to sell to the public, why didn't the state of CT ban it as part of their AWB? According to the state, that rifle was not an "assault weapon".

[Press Virginia]

107. Not to mention the gun was stolen

[cantbeserious]

91. So, What Makes The AR-15 Only Suitable For Law Enforcement - It Is No Different Than Other

Semi- Automatic firearms.

[hack89]

92. Beats me. Probably the color. nt

[cstanleytech]

118. Did you try wiki?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[cantbeserious]

119. How Is The AR-15 Different Than Any Other Semi-Automatic Rifle That Citizens Can Purchase Today?

eom

[cstanleytech]

120. You tell me since your the expert as I have very little actually experience with guns from which

to form an opinion.

[cantbeserious]

122. The Answer Is - There Is No Practical Difference - Aside From Perception - Functionally All

Semi-Automatic Rifles Are The Same.

[cstanleytech]

123. So they all fire the same caliber of bullet at the same rate and muzzle velocity?

[cantbeserious]

124. Rate Of Fire - As Fast As The Trigger Can Be Squeezed - Bullet Caliber - Gun Owner Choice

Muzzle Velocity - Function of Caliber - Cartridge Load - Barrel Length.

All variables that can be selected across many different manufacturers and rifle models.

[cstanleytech]

129. So the owners have to modify the gun to change it from a say a 22 to a 50 cal?

In that case wouldnt it be the fault of the owner for changing the guns caliber?

[cantbeserious]

130. AR-15 Is Not Made In 50 Caliber - 50 Caliber Firearms Strictly Controlled - Plethora Of Cartridges

[oneshooter]

140. They can be chambered in 50 Beowulf. (sp)

A custom cartridge designed for the AR.

[NashuaDW]

2. It will be dismissed soon ... and then the plaintifs will be hit with a huge judgement

It is very sad that these parents are being used like this.

[onehandle]

5. Who creates an ID at a liberal site only to post a few times over 7 years in the Gungeon?

Just wondering.

[Purveyor]

70. My guess would be someone who actually has a life other than

lobbing spitballs 24/7 on a 2-bit political forum.

[7962]

77. Boom!

[Callmecrazy]

100. ZING!

[kdmorris]

86. Inevitable Jury Results

On Thu Apr 14, 2016, 03:53 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

My guess would be someone who actually has a life other than
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1414750

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack and slamming DU yet again

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 14, 2016, 04:00 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Humor... learn it.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Two words: Secret republican.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: no personal attack,not a name mentioned.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: nah
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[7962]

137. Good lord. "Secret republican". Oldie but a goodie

Have a disagreement? Well, by jove, you're a republican!

[Big_Mike]

93. I am one of those types as well.

I have been on since 2003. I look, read, and VERY OCCASIONALLY comment. I have posted more in the last year than the previous 5 years (thank you long term injury, you bastard you). I read LBN, Gun Control and RKBA daily, others I glance at when I find time, but I hardly ever commented in any other forum.

The point I make is although I don't comment much, I've been here a long time. I remember the old board, and I thought I saw one before that, back in '99 or 2000, when I only hit once a month or so.

Otherwise, best of the day to you, and I cannot wait until the election is over and we try to move along into the future.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

8. Yeah, I don't understand this - the law is explicitly clear.

[yallerdawg]

26. Yeah - there's nothing we can do...

The families are suing for wrongful death, and they're accusing the gunmaker of selling a so-called civilian weapon that's designed and marketed for combat.

It certainly met its design capability at Sandy Hook.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. The marketing is somewhat testosterone-laden.

It's not marketed for combat though. US military of any type wouldn't entertain purchasing this weapon, because it is not compatible with M-16 parts, per the 1986 GOPA, which required civilian weapons not be interchangeable with fully-automatic or select-fire weapons.

This AR-15 variant is not materially different from one produced in 1986. So, this suit will be thrown out. Because it's bullshit from stem to stern.

[yallerdawg]

49. If you wanted to produce mass casualties in an elementary school...

wouldn't the Remington Bushmaster AR -15 be the gun of choice?

Like it was made for this purpose?

[hack89]

55. The Va Tech shooter choose two handguns

in fact, handguns are the most common weapon for mass shootings.

[yallerdawg]

60. What could gun manufacturers do...

to make handguns safer for all of us?

A couple lawsuits and I bet we'd find out!

[hack89]

66. Not much at the moment

the technology is young and immature. Guns are mechanically simple and very reliable. The reliability factor is the big issue with smart gun technology.

You will know it works when police departments adopt it

[AtheistCrusader]

57. There is no firearm mild enough to be 'less lethal' against a child's body.

Any high capacity firearm of any caliber would be adequate for the purpose employed at Sandy Hook. Meaning, any semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine. Of which there are tens of millions in circulation in the united states right now.

There is no material difference between a civilian AK-47, AR-15, AR-10, SCAR-L, etc, for this purpose. They are all equally lethal against humans, especially children, and all capable of firing as fast as you pull the trigger, and all capable of accepting external ammunition stores that could increase the cyclic rate of the weapon.

Handguns would suffice as well, as we saw at Virginia Tech. The weapon used against Gabrielle Giffords would be similarly devastating in that use case.


There are no semi-automatic firearms that accept detachable magazines mild enough to be 'safer' in civilian hands, when considering the Sandy Hook attack. None. The would all be just as tragic.

[yallerdawg]

68. That's a pretty profound indictment of guns.

Let's take a look at where we are today:

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

[AtheistCrusader]

71. To my knowledge, nobody is marketing guns as non-lethal toys.

The AR-15 was used by the DC Sniper, and a 10 year old was shot in the chest. (He survived)

You could have substituted with the AK-47, or the AR-10 in that case, and the child would likely have died.
The AR-15 is actually pretty mild, power/penetration-wise. Not legal for use against any mammal deer-sized or larger in my state. It's more suitable for coyote, and down.

[Angel Martin]

74. If you look at the ammunition sold for the AR15 .223

almost none of the major ammo companies produce 223 cartridges that they label as suitable for self defence (ie use on people)

they are either target or varmint rounds

https://www.federalpremium.com/products/rifle.aspx

http://www.remington.com/search/ammo?cartridge=353

223 is really a varmint round, not really suitable for animals over 50 pounds

Yes it will kill people, but so will bird shot.

Arguing that an AR15 with 223 is "only intended to kill people" is nonsense, human targets is probably its least effective use other than hunting large game

[yallerdawg]

82. Varmint rounds.

That's a shitload of varmints coming at you!

If I was crazy - and wanted to take out a bunch of small first graders - how would it do?

[Angel Martin]

96. 223 or birdshot or even a 22 rimfire will work

people are killed every year with that ammunition

but a round actually designed for self defence will be more effective. (even on a 50 lb kid)

And rounds designed to hunt medium game (~200 pounds), like what used to be used in battle rifles (3006, 308) will be a lot more deadly than a varmint round

the real question isn't, as always, if a maniac can get ahold of some type of firearm, all of which are deadly. In a country of 300 million guns, they can.

the question is: are they going to have a free fire zone of defenceless targets until 911 gets there ?

[yallerdawg]

109. More guns!

Perfect.

And the purpose of gun activists.

[Angel Martin]

114. the laws and regulations have to

be based on the reality of the country we have, not the country we wish we had.

[JDPriestly]

25. You are most likely right.

Unless the manufacturer somehow did some negligent or intentional act that caused the deaths and the shooting, I do not see how, under products liability law, a plaintiff who bears the burden of proof can prove that the manufacturer of a legal product that was not defective, that functioned as it was supposed to, that was not directly sold by the manufacturer to the person who used the product for an unintended and evil purpose, caused damages and death.

I just don't see how that is possible.

It would just be too easy to argue for the defendant manufacturer in this situation.

The law could be changed, but I think we would have to change the Constitution to do it.

Anyone see this differently from a legal point of view? Any argument that the manufacturer somehow caused the children's deaths in light of the fact that just manufacturing a legal product, arguably legal under the Constitution as far as the law is concerned at this point, can render a defendant liable under products liability law. This would be strict liability, and I don't see how that is possible for gun manufacturers now.

[Hoyt]

34. Yes, manufacturer through promotion of their guns and use of the captive NRA to shill for the dang

things in legislatures across the country, created an environment that led to Sandy Hook.

Here's an ad for the rifle used in Sandy Hook and popular among gunners here and elsewhere:

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Marketing is bullshit, news at 11.

[yallerdawg]

53. The AR-15.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. And? Not legal in my state for hunting deer. Want to know why?

Because it's not powerful enough to reliably and humanely kill a 200-250lb deer.

Enter the AR-10, a .30 caliber variant of the AR-15.

The outcome at Sandy Hook would not have been improved by the murderer using a weapon more suitable to hunting.

The AR-15 was designed to accept a 30 round stick mag. The Beta-C 100 round mag in that video is a separate issue. (And has been banned in some states. A legal gun control measure, even in light of the 2nd amendment.)

[Hoyt]

78. However you look at it, the gun culture is responsible for Sandy Hook. And gun profiteers have

fostered the gun culture.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Sandy hook is not the most devastating school attack in US history.

The implements used in that attack are more tightly controlled now, but not illegal either.

You are coming at this from the wrong end. I fully agree these weapons should not be in certain hands. I'm down with preventing them from getting ahold of them. Just as we don't let joe dipshit get ahold of dynamite.

There are constructive purposes to the lawful use of dynamite. So too, for the AR-15.

[Hoyt]

90. I don't care if it is one racist yahoo shooting an unarmed teenager, gun crud has gone on too long.

Gun fanciers need to give up their sick obsession. Keep a gun or two at home if you really hunt, but to hell with the rest of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Good luck with that attitude. The difference in ownership between republicans and democrats in the

general populace for guns, is 22%. That's the delta.

Your attitude will not find legislative traction.

[Hoyt]

97. Better than the sick attitude of those who this ad was aimed at.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. I agree.

I think it's a sexist, and ridiculous message, especially given the ballistics of the .223.

That gun is being marketed toward people who want guns, but don't have a fucking clue how they work or why. Hence, the sexist, zero-information and counter-intuitive bombastic advertising.

I think it trods dangerously close to truth-in-advertising action.
Nor is it better than motorcycle ads with bikes festooned in improperly-geared female riders. A marketing strategy that industry is evolving away from, because *society* is evolving.

[Hoyt]

103. I'm glad you've studied up on the best loads to kill unarmed teens. Sounds like a fun hobby.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. I'm glad you're still making up bullshit as you go.

[Lizzie Poppet]

154. Horseshit. Adam Lanza and his idiot mother are responsible for Sandy Hook. Period.

[Hoyt]

162. BS back, gun profiteers and those who love the dang things are. As are NRA

and legislators who help enact gun friendly laws.

[Angel Martin]

83. finally, some sense on this subject

"The outcome at Sandy Hook would not have been improved by the murderer using a weapon more suitable to hunting."

the US army adopts what is really a varmint round for its main battle rifle, and the gun grabbers extrapolate that the "only" use for the .223 is military combat.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. It's even worse for the military.

Imagine those 200-250lb deer with body armor, shooting back at you.

Ok, yeah, I can carry a lot more 5.56 NATO a lot further than I can battle packs of 7.62, but... You kinda want those armed deer to lay down and stop shooting, after you shoot *them*.

[Angel Martin]

113. i know some of the US special ops forces

have carried M14's, for that very reason.

If the regular army/marines were allowed more leeway on choice of weapons, I wonder how many would still stick with the .223 ?

[saturnsring]

75. binkie for scared little boys reissued

[frylock]

85. And then people will fault Bernie for the settlement these folks have to pay out.

[Skittles]

115. LOL

I'm sure you care SOOOO much about those parents

[onehandle]

3. Crush them.

Gun manufacturers should be 100% culpable for the pain and suffering their designed to maim and kill product creates.

[phazed0]

9. Ignorant question: Why? nt

[hack89]

14. Same for brewers and distillers I assume?

those creators of a highly addictive substance whose only purpose is to intoxicate.

[Amimnoch]

18. Of course. Because beer is manufactured for the sole purpose of killing things?

[hack89]

20. So the people it kills and the suffering it causes is justified?

because it was designed to intoxicate instead of kill?

Say you get you wish and get strict gun control. What will you do when we reach the point where alcohol kills more people than guns?

[sarisataka]

22. Is my cousin less dead

Because beer is not manufactured for the sole purpose of killing things?

It seems like her life was cut off at 18 because a man with six previous DUI's was still able to go out and buy a 12-pack and drive drunk. All he had to do was plunk down money in a liquor store.

How is that not negligent entrustment by the manufacturer of the alcohol?

Or should our family sue Ford for letting him buy a pickup truck through a private sale with no background check?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

35. If he plunked down money at the liquor store WHILE DRUNK, ...

... the liquor store might be guilty of something. The distiller, bottler, distributor, no.

[sarisataka]

46. I apply that same standard

To guns. If the gun blows up, manufacturers fault. If a store doesn't do a BGC or completes a suspicious sale it is their fault.

But if a gun works properly, was sold in accordance with the law and good judgement and later is used to commit a crime then the fault is 100% with the POS pulling the trigger.

It should be this way for any product.

[JDPriestly]

29. The manufacturer could argue that the assault weapons are made for self-defense or for sport.

I think the defense will have it easy in this case. As a grandmother, I think that is sad, but I think it is so.

[Sheepshank]

43. The manufacturer of tobacco products was held responsible for maiming and deaths.

they spread mis information and withheld pertinent information designed to increase sales. The proliferation of guns in the USA was done with no less that these very same tobacco company tactics in mind. The Manufacturers actions were designed to maximize profits at the expense of the safety of the communities at large, and the many deaths that came about ...all because of the actions of gun manufacturers in collusion with NRA.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. There are over 9 million of those specific rifles in civilian circulation

and less than 3% of crimes committed with a firearm involve a rifle of any type, and a smaller percentage involve THIS type of rifle.

So it sounds to me like the vast bulk (>99.999%) are NOT a risk to communities at large on any given day.
Which also sounds like another way to say; there are lawful uses for these firearms and most people use them lawfully.

[Tab]

117. Forget the percentage of crimes committed with rifles

Spread across all firearm crimes, it's probably a small percentage.

However, how many mass shootings have involved THIS kind of rifle?

And if it's really so minor in proliferation, why fight any ban or control on it?

[AtheistCrusader]

125. 9 million. That's a lot.

And it can't be meaningfully defined in legal terms, as distinct from any other semi-auto mag-fed center-fire rifle, which swells the 'proliferation' ranks by many tens of millions.

[Tab]

134. Then maybe it's not as insignificant as people are arguing

maybe?

I have another obligation tonight so I won't be ping-ponging this back and forth. Just tossing out something to think about.

[AtheistCrusader]

143. I don't think it's insignificant.

I think attempts to regulate are so over-broad and ill-defined, any law that meaningfully restricts the capability of the weapon to limit the damage of an attack like Sandy Hook, impermissibly restricts the 2nd amendment, and even if we ignore that, it would then limit/ban something on the order of a hundred million long guns in circulation.

I favor restrictions, like the NFA registry, that applies to fully automatic and select fire weapons. I wish to control who gets what, not what the weapon can 'do'. I don't think we can meaningfully limit its capability. But we can reduce the number of them in very wrong hands, we can, with registration, stifle straw purchases. There's a lot that is permissible under the law, and can be done.

'Arms', as long as they fall within the caliber restrictions of current firearms, will someday include lasers, railguns and other directed energy weapons. Food for thought.

[George II]

19. Brewers and distilleries don't design their product to more effectively and violently...

...rip open organs.

[hack89]

21. Yet it kills just as many people as guns.

and it a contributor to underage drinking, disease, domestic abuse, child abuse, traffic accidents and suicide.

Say you get you wish and get strict gun control. What will you do when we reach the point where alcohol kills more people than guns?

[JDPriestly]

31. Good point!

[yallerdawg]

32. Celebrate!!!

Then we can work more on alcohol abuse!

[hack89]

33. Include suing brewers and distillers out of business? nt

[yallerdawg]

37. I don't know of any alcoholic beverage...

designed to produce mass casualties in combat. Like the AR-15.

[hack89]

41. So the actual death toll and impact on society is irrelevant?

we need to shut down companies that make rifles that kill a hundred people a year but you are fine with companies that make a substance that kills nearly 90,000 people a year?

Ok.

[yallerdawg]

45. There's that NRA spin again (like what Bernie said).

Make the assault weapons. Sell them to the military and law enforcement (sort of "well-regulated militias&quot .

Just don't sell them to moms!

[hack89]

50. Pure security theater

think about Va Tech and it is clear that banning "assault weapons" does not make anyone safer.

[yallerdawg]

56. Your answer is...

there is nothing we can do to make us safer from gun violence.

Because of gun violence.

[hack89]

62. There are lots of things we can do

the only laws I reject out of hand is registration and AWBs.

I suspect you and I agree on many gun control matters.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. I'm down with Registration. But it needs iron clad protections to ensure it not be mis-used

to ban guns.

I point to the 1934 National Firearms Act as an example of both, a registry that works to keep guns out of 'bad' actors hands, and one that was used to unlawfully ban guns.

[Sheepshank]

47. Drinkers, drink unto themselves....

...very rarely does someone die because they were forced unwillingly, to drink copious amounts.

Victims of gun violence are not the shooter, its the person at the other end.

to compare alcohol deaths to gun deaths is NOT even remotely the same.

[hack89]

52. So we can discount the two thirds of gun deaths that are suicides? Good.

child abuse, domestic abuse, traffic accidents - please tell me how alcohol does not wreck considerable violence and suffering on innocent victims.

[Sheepshank]

121. Twist my words any way you wish...I did not say alcohol doesn't wreck lives

The consumption of alcohol is it's own problematic "thing"...not comparable to gun violence.

If we are going to play the comparable game, I'd say tobacco is probably a little more comparable to Alcohol and gun violence, and the manufacturers in that case were held liable.

So instead of diverting the conversation by trying to create a false link between alcohol and gun violence, and it appears this discussion is all about making up shit, I'd rather compare gun violence to tobacco....2nd hand smoke did indeed lead to many deaths and those manufacturers are in deep financial shit because of it....they are finding a lovely new addctive product, vape..

Frankly, to exclude one killer product because it's not being treated the same as another killer product is absolutely, fucking ridiculous. Each killer should be reviewed and adjudicated on it's own merits.

[hack89]

136. No comparison between guns and tobacco

tobacco companies were held liable because they knew they were selling a highly addictive substance yet lied and deceived the public that tobacco was harmless.

There has never been any doubt that guns are dangerous and gun manufacturers never hid that fact - there is good reason guns are not loosely regulated like alcohol and tobacco.

[Sheepshank]

145. Deceiving the public that the product was harmless

Remember the oft repeated line, "Guns don't kill people...." Your own words Describes exactly the mo of gun manufacturers in collusion with NRA

[hack89]

146. Let's think about that for a second.

Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Gun manufacturers fooled the public about how safe guns are and consequently sold a shit ton of guns. At the same time we saw a steady 20 year decline in gun violence and gun deaths that saw our murder rate cut in half. Was this because guns were not as dangerous as you make them out to be? Or are they dangerous but proper regulation mitigated the impact? Or was the number and type of guns irrelevant to levels of gun violence and other social factors were at play.?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

58. I have the solution to this debate.

Either every person should have a closet full of guns and ammo or nobody does.

Anything else is unsafe and unfair.

Now, which scenario do you think is less violent and will result in less death and destruction?

[beastie boy]

44. Actually, breweries and distilleries are not immune from prosecution like gun makers are.

It would be a welcome change if the gun makers were held to the same standard: no sales to 17 year olds, ID required for purchase, no open carry, no possession while driving, home owners accountable for conduct of intoxicated residents and guests, etc, etc.

[hack89]

59. So if I bought a six pack from 7-11, got drunk and killed someone

the brewer is somehow responsible?

[beastie boy]

80. It will be up to the courts to decide.

But the brewer cannot not presume automatic immunity from prosecution.

And I suspect it would be easier for the courts to render a guilty verdict if the brewer were to design your six pack for the exclusive purpose of shooting body piercing projectiles and distribute them to your local 7-11where you can purchase it without as much as proof of age.

[hack89]

87. You know that gun manufacturers don't sell directly to the public

nor is it legal anywhere to purchase a gun from a store without a background check that involves more than proof of age.

[beastie boy]

106. You were trying to push a false analogy.

I merely illustrated a hypothetical case where the analogy wouldn't be as false. In my illustration, your six-pack wouldn't be sold directly to you either. And to take the analogy as far as your latest post demands, you can easily imagine your lethal projectile-dispensing six pack being sold to you at a beer show, without you producing ANY ID.

Of course, none of your objections mitigate the fact that your hypothetical six pack would have been designed to kill if used as intended. The only other product I know of that does the same thing is cigarettes. And cigarette manufacturers are being sued left and right.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. In the case of Sandy Hook

the weapon in question was a sub-variant legal for sale under that state's Assault Weapon constraints, and was legally transferred to the murderer's mother, in a background-checked sale.

This is a dry hole.

If there was a case of weapons being proliferated in a manner violating state or federal law, that would be actionable.

[beastie boy]

111. I am sure the plaintiffs are aware of this.

And I am sure they are not cocky enough to think this is an open and shut case.

As things stand now, what they got was an opportunity to redress their grievances before the court.

Don't you think this is fair? I do. And I don't think there is anything special about gun manufacturers that would make them immune from fairness, let alone equal treatment under the law.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. The strategy in play here seems in line with the claimed tactic that led to the PLCAA

in the first place; bankrupt sellers/manufacturers via legislative action.

Like the Bryco arms lawsuit. I think Bryco pistols are shit, and by all means, take them off the market, but to find the babysitter that aimed it at a child, pulled the trigger, liable for some ridiculous huge sum, of which Bryco was liable for $24 million worth of partial responsibility, that was bullshit. You don't point ANY firearm at a child and attempt to unload it, even if you are familiar with the weapon, which the babysitter was not even that.

If it's actually defective, sue. Fine. If it's an end-run to delve into pockets, that's BS.

[beastie boy]

131. Once again, what this thread is about is merely an expectation on the part of the plaintiffs

to have their case heard in court without prejudice. PLCAA is prejudicious on its face in favor of the manufacturers. It basically grants immunity to the gun manufacturers where a judge and jury have their say in all other cases.

No other industry is immune to due process to such degree. Why should the gun makers be an exception?

[AtheistCrusader]

142. Similar protections should be extended to other products.

I don't think Ford should have to answer for itself if some cretin takes one of their products to a school playground and intentionally runs over children.

If the fucking thing slips into gear and jumps the curb, that's one thing. Someone spins the wheel, takes aim, and does it on purpose, that's not the manufacturer's issue.

[beastie boy]

152. I must conclude you are in favor of protecting the tobacco and asbestos industries as well

If someone dies of lung cancer, it's OK. Only if someone chokes on a defective cigarette are the makers responsible.

Sorry, I just can't agree with that.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Those makers misrepresented the danger of the products.

There's no misrepresentation in the gun industry. Those weapons are marketed with the full intent that they are fully deadly.

Tobacco and Asbestos represented that their products were safe. They knew full well they were not.

[beastie boy]

155. "Tobacco and Asbestos represented that their products were safe." Do gun makers represent their

products as unsafe? Do they market their products as instruments of murder and suicide? On the contrary, the gun industry, through their allies in Congress, have consistently thwarted all attempts to study the dangers of the products they market. No warning labels, and complete resistance to any and all technologies that will make their products less unsafe. All the while being silent on the safety issues.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. My carry handgun has seven separate safties to prevent discharge unless

I am fully holding it in my hand, and actually pull the trigger.

The varieties of safety on the weapon were a major, advertised selling point.
Not sure what utility there might be in a warning label about suicide.

[beastie boy]

157. Show me one gun ad that markets the product as an instrument for killing.

Or an ad with a warning label. The utility of a warning label goes exactly to the point you raised earlier: that all guns are marketed as dangerous killing machines. This is simply not true. On the contrary, guns are usually advertised as instruments for personal protection, which is patently false: even though extensive studies on gun violence are actively suppressed by the gun lobby, there is nevertheless plenty of evidence showing gun ownership to be directly correlated to gun violence , especially among gun owners.

BTW, I mentioned a warning label as an analogy to cigarettes. It may not make a difference to me or you, but is likely to influence someone younger and more impressionable.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. Rule number one of firearms.

Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to DESTROY.

I go to Springfield Armory, top ad:

Introducing the NEW SOCOM 16 CQB
For over 230 years, the name Springfield Armory® has been associated with proven combat arms. This storied tradition continues with the all-new SOCOM 16 CQB. A modernized descendant of the distinguished M14 and M1A™ rifles, the SOCOM 16 CQB is designed for serious defensive use as its Close Quarters Battle name implies.

It's not 'dangerous' in the sense you just used the word. It's 'dangerous' to shit that is downrange.

BTW, I mentioned a warning label as an analogy to cigarettes. It may not make a difference to me or you, but is likely to influence someone younger and more impressionable.

And that's fair. The 'Man Card' bushmaster ad that was posted earlier is, fully, juvenile and does not send a realistic message to the consumer about what the product is for. People familiar with the rifle and caliber know it's bullshit, but an 18 year old legally able to purchase it? Probably going to buy into the cool-aid a bit.

There's nothing stopping legislatures from imposing advertising controls on these weapons. That's not under then 2nd amendment at all.

Edit: One could say the same about motorcycle ads (which are improving slowly) and the public health correlation of young, invincible, 18 year olds smearing themselves across a quarter mile of pavement might illustrate.

[beastie boy]

160. A few technicalities.

The source you have given is not an ad, it's a description. It has nothing describing the dangers of using the weapon. On the contrary, it markets the weapon for "serious defensive use", and it appeals to macho types desiring ridiculous overkill capabilities:

The authoritative .308 chambering with optional 20-round magazines won’t leave you wanting more fight-stopping effectiveness.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/products/m1a-socom-16-cqb/

I must say, though, it's a very impressive weapon. If you are a Falooja resident.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. It's their front page ad. That's an advertisement.

That's the same ad in various magazines/print.

[Marengo]

163. It is "patently false" that people use guns as instruments for personal protection?

Not once, ever?

[beastie boy]

164. An awkward choice of words on my part.

Duly noted. What is patently false is the sense of security promised by the sellers of firearms. Gun ownership actually increases your chances of being a victim of gun violence.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

54. Yep

[7962]

79. Sorry, but it'll never happen.

[LAGC]

104. You urban Democrats are killing us in flyover country.

Good luck getting anything passed, let alone any sort of reasonable gun control measures, so long as we can never take back the House.

[Big_Mike]

110. Then so are the automobile, swimming pool, and even the bathtub industries. And what about booze? Or

gasp, illegal use of drugs? People die from the above and many other causes. So don't just dump on guns.

[geek tragedy]

4. if only there were a debate tonight where this could be discussed, nt

[onehandle]

6. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Here's hoping.

[JonLeibowitz]

10. Indeed, I hope they discuss it.

As a lawyer she has to know her position is ridiculous, and that PLCAA makes perfect sense. I'm hoping to see her present another specious argument so that I have yet another reason to not vote for her.

[rockfordfile]

149. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will support her

Will you? Look if Senator Sanders is the nominee then I will vote for him.

[JonLeibowitz]

150. Ah, loyalty oaths, how cute. Goodbye.

[MosheFeingold]

12. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

Really gutted anti-gun efforts.

The idea behind the law is a guns are not defective if they do what they are supposed to do -- i.e. shoot when intended to shoot.

The great hope was lawfare against the gun manufacturers could shut them down if enough states said they were unreasonably dangerous products, as designed.

A top priority should be the repeal of this law. It would allow gun control without the 2nd amendment issues.

[Cryptoad]

24. is that not the bill Hillary voted against and Bern voted for?

[pnwmom]

39. Yes. And Brady was the opposite -- she favored Brady and he opposed. n/t

[tularetom]

38. Wow, talk about opening a 55 gallon drum of worms

I'm certain this frivolous lawsuit will ultimately be thrown out of court, but can you imagine the chaos that would result from a precedent it would create.

Full employment act for Jimmy McGill type lawyers.

[jtuck004]

64. GM and the taxpayers being sued for every drunk that has a car wreck, for example.

Emotional Liability. A whole new industry.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

126. Nonsense.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Dafuq is an AR-16?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

61. The article at the link says "AR-15".

My guess is the article was corrected after the OP was posted. The OP should be copied from the source, all typos included.

Or it's a marketing designation: AR-16. Like and AR-15, but one better.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. It was a 'derp' moment by the author.

But clearly corrected, as you point out.

[tularetom]

63. LOL

The semiautomatic civilian version of the M-15?

[AtheistCrusader]

67. The AR-15 is the semiautomatic civilian version of the M-16.

[tularetom]

73. Duh

I was makin a joke, obviously not very well.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. My bad. I didn't catch the sarcasm.

The fault is mine.

[braddy]

95. This isn't relevant to your accurate post about AR-15 and M-16, but for a little trivia, my

M-16 in the Army was actually stamped AR-15, it was one of the early models of the M-16 with the 3 pronged vine grabber flash suppressor, but of course that was a 45 years ago and already even most soldiers had forgotten about that early designation.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Yeah, the '15 was ready for the field prior to the '16.

The early design history is... muddy and more than a little legend-making going on.

My pre-1986 AR is materially identical to your issue M-16. I could swap the guts and it would work fine in select-fire, even though stamped AR-15.

[oneshooter]

138. I have three of them, left to me by my Dad.

Mine are from 1968 or so. Dad ordered them from a dealer. I got a letter from the ATF six years ago, seems that the early AR receivers were pulled from the M16 line as that was the only production line Colt has at the time.
They were built using full auto receivers with a semi auto FCG, and a full auto bolt.
ATF allowed me to register them as they were factory built as semi autos.
So it seems that I own three semi auto/ full auto rifles.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. That's pretty cool.

Mine is also inherited, pre-86 law taking effect. Olympic Arms also had one assembly line, but some moved to a side area and were completed with shortened bolt carriers, shortened bolts, no auto sear, and the hammer tang missing from the fire control group. So, at the time, fully legal semi-auto AR-15.

Manufacturing it today, would be a felony.

(I have no intent to even ask the BATFE for permission to acquire an auto sear or anything else to modify it. It's never been fired, outside the factory proof rounds.)

[Travis_0004]

81. So the end result is that bushmaster will spend more on legal fees.

Then when they finally win the lawsuit, they will get a bigger judgement.

[Hoyt]

101. Only if the judge decides to reward the gun profiteers.

[TM99]

127. You see it as rewarding.

How about recognizing that it is about the law.

[Hoyt]

133. Yeah, Sanders' supported law to protect corporate gun profiteers.

[TM99]

135. No he opposed frivolous

lawsuits against a manufacturer of a legal product.

Your position is nothing more than emotional hyperbole. Thankfully, you and those like you are not responsible for the laws in this country.

[rockfordfile]

148. you sound like a republican. supporting gun makers.

[TM99]

165. You sound like a partisan hack

for thinking that I am.

If you don't realize that just as many leftists are upset with frivolous lawsuits and also support only reasonable gun restrictions that acknowledge 2nd amendment rallies then you are blinded by your own emotionality on the subject.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

128. If I make a product called "Poison In A Can" or "Dynamite For Fun", both products clearly

designed to kill, and then you buy them and someone dies, well.

So I think you and I agree on this.

[X_Digger]

141. You mean like rat poison?

If my dear sweet mother-in-law should spike my morning danish with rat poison, should my wife be able to sue Rat-X for selling a product 'designed to kill'?

Two free clues: a) what something was 'designed to do' has fuck-all to do with liability, and b) the ar-15 was 'designed' to be a sporting semi-auto rifle.

[Ikonoklast]

89. The only people who will be making out in this are the plaintiff's attorneys.

This will be thrown out of court, the families sued for a baseless lawsuit, and stuck with massive legal bills.

That article extrapolates quite a bit from the opposite of what the judge actually said and did.

[msanthrope]

112. Excellent. nt

[Kang Colby]

132. Keep in mind only some of the Sandy Hook families are parties to this frivolous lawsuit.

When the judge orders the plaintiffs to pay Bushmaster's legal fees, I hope Bushmaster donates the award to the National Rifle Association...Lucky Gunner attempted to do something similar a few months back after the frivolous lawsuit against them was tossed out by a judge.

We obviously need to strengthen the PLCAA. $100,000 per day against the plaintiffs if they bring a frivolous lawsuit to the courts....that would do the trick. Additionally, before a court could hear a case like this, the plaintiffs should be forced to place a million dollars in escrow with the courts, so they don't file bankruptcy like the Aurora family did when the frivolous lawsuit inevitably fails.

[Politicub]

139. Sanders must be crying in his beer

He supported the immunity for gun manufacturers law.

Must hurt his feelings to see a gun maker on the rocks.

[rockfordfile]

147. We need a law to make this happen. The gun manufactures should be liable

We need a law to make this happen. The gun manufactures should be liable for crimes that are committed with their product.

[oneshooter]

151. As should auto makers, knife makers,

any the makers of anything that can be used in a crime.

[Calista241]

159. Kicking the can down the road.

And this will ultimately be to the detriment of the plaintiffs.

The lawyer fees that the plaintiffs will have to pay for will be substantially higher after all the lawyers have to pay for the 100's of hours of work they'll put in drafting motions.