Gun industry group sues Conn. over gun law

[NoGOPZone]

Source: Associated Press

A national gun industry group on Monday filed the latest lawsuit challenging Connecticut's new wide-ranging gun law, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc., which is based in Newtown a few miles from Sandy Hook, claims the emergency legislation was illegally passed in April without proper public input, time for adequate review by members of the General Assembly, or a statement of facts explaining why lawmakers needed to bypass the usual legislative process.

"There was no emergency and so there's no statement of facts as to why this is an emergency," Lawrence G. Keane, the foundation's senior vice president and general counsel, told The Associated Press, arguing the public's federal and state constitutional due process rights were therefore violated. "There was truly no emergency other than a political one."

Keane said the foundation wants a U.S. District Court judge to strike down the law as invalid, prohibiting it from being enforced. Many parts of the legislation have already taken effect, such as an expanded ban on guns considered to be assault weapons and a ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/gun-industry-group-sues-conn-131137926.html

[Kolesar]

1. The National Whiny Ass Foundation, Inc ... eom

[AlbertCat]

2. lawyers are gonna make a FORTUNE!

Well played.

[hack89]

3. The legislature had no choice but to bypass the usual legislative process.

it was the only way it could be passed.

[Lasher]

6. The end justifies the means, then?

The same rationalization can be used to justify many things.

[hack89]

7. According to gun control advocates it does. nt

[Lasher]

13. I'm sorry, I got the impression that you condone the process.

Now I guess I'm not sure.

[question everything]

4. So they can sue, but cannot be sued?

A local letter today expressed an outrage that "Congress passed laws that indemnify the gun industry from being held responsible for the death and destruction their products bring to our families."

Is this true?

[hack89]

5. Not true

gun manufacturers can be sued like any company for damages due to faulty products or illegal acts. They cannot be sued if they sell a properly functioning product in accordance with all applicable laws - just like any other company.

The law you mentioned came about because gun companies were being sued for the damages done by illegal acts that they had no control over. It would be like suing a brewer because someone drank a 12 pack and then killed someone in a drunken driving accident. It was a concerted campaign by gun control advocates to drive gun manufacturers out of business by overwhelming them with massive legal fees and judgements.

[question everything]

8. Thank you (nt)

[Iggo]

10. Can't sue 'em for faulty product.

Guns are designed to kill. They are working properly.

[question everything]

22. Yes, the "product" worked fine

Last fall, a disturbed young man was fired for too many violations while working in a small, family owned business.

The man went to his car - parked on the company property - came back and killed the owner of the company and several other employees. After the tragedy, the business has resumed operations or, I think, is trying to resume.

Yet the family of one of the victims is suing the company for... negligence, I think.

Hence came the letter, expressing exasperation that the business is being sued, but not the gun manufacturer.

I think that a family of one of the Newtown victims tried to sue... the school, I think, but withdrew.

Honestly, I doubt that any jury in this town will convict the business.

[melm00se]

12. they can be sued

if their product is defective but not as a backdoor effort to drive them out of business.

The federal indemnification was brought forward because localities and individuals were bringing suit against the manufacturers holding them liable for the actions of person or persons 2, 3, 4 or more steps down the resale chain.

the equivalent type of action would be like me suing Chrysler because the 3rd owner of a 1982 Lebaron was drunk and killed a family member.

assuming the product is not defective, a manufacturer can not be held liable for how the product is used as long as the product is sold according to the laws and regulations of the state in which the transaction took place.

[question everything]

23. Thank you. No, the product was not "defective," see my reply, above

but one can understand the frustration of many people.

[Eleanors38]

16. No. Any manufacturer (including of guns) can be sued

for defective products. Guns, autos, printers -- all can and have been sued for injury and/or damages relating to defective products.

[question everything]

24. Thank you. Will not surprise me if a would be

killer or a robber sue a gun manufacturer for a "defective" product that led to an arrest and conviction.

Stranger things have happened.

[onehandle]

9. Aw twey afwaid thwey mway woose thaiwr widdle pwenis extenwers?

Good.

Fuck them.

[hack89]

11. My wife and daughter get a laugh every time they see a gun/penis reference

as far as they are concerned it merely shows how out of touch controllers are with the shooting community.

[Eleanors38]

18. Sounds like they are out of touch with other things.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. The "emergency" was they needed to act before the NRA et al could dump buckets of money to stop it.

[lancer78]

15. This is what happens ...

when you pass laws based on emotion. What the Conn. legislature did is no different then what pro-birth forces are doing across the country. As Dems, I thought we were supposed to be more "rule abiding" then republicans. I guess Nader was right, there is no difference between the 2 parties.

[Paladin]

19. That anti-emotions thing was never very persuasive. Enjoy your stay. (nt)

[wordpix]

17. "there was no emergency" ---whaaa?

20 little kids + 6 educators gunned down in a "good" school in a "good" neighborhood and it's not an emergency? Let me guess: the NRA is behind this sports foundation group.

And BTW---by "foundation," does that mean the group is nonprofit/exempt from paying taxes while engaged in a political contest?

[Eleanors38]

25. If this was an emergency, Conn. LEOs should have taken IMMEDIATE action

to ameliorate any "emergency." They didn't. They went the well-known "speedy" route of legislation.
The ardent gun-controller Sen. Barbara Boxer (D,CA) advocated "emergency" action: Send in the National Guard to every school in the nation. Well, she at least treated the tragedy as an emergency.

[krispos42]

20. Good.

Panic legislation is never a good idea, first of all.


Second, if it was a disgusting example of legislative-process abuse the way Texas tried to pass the anti-abortion bill a couple of weeks ago, or the union-busting bills in Wisconsin a couple of years ago, then what was here in Connecticut a couple of months cannot be excused either.

The bill was four months in the making, then introduced on April 1st and voted on April 4th, with no public input or committee votes?

Would anybody think this bill was legit if it was Texas or Virginia or Mississippi passing something? Pick a topic... abortion, tax cuts, charter schools, food stamps, unemployment insurance, fracking regulation...

[LanternWaste]

21. anyone can sue anyone for anything... regardless of how idiotic the suit is.

I s'pose that as it is America, anyone can sue anyone for anything... regardless of how idiotic the suit is.

God bless America...