Sandy Hook gun lawsuit moves forward in Connecticut Supreme Court

[TupperHappy]

(CNN)Connecticut's highest court will hear an appeal from the families of nine victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre who brought a lawsuit against gunmaker Remington.

The state Supreme Court transferred the case to its docket Thursday, two weeks after families' attorneys filed their appeal.

"We very much welcome the court's swift action, particularly as these families approach the fourth painful anniversary of the shooting," the families' attorney, Josh Koskoff, said in a statement. "Time and again our Supreme Court has recognized the importance of allowing litigants their day in court and the indispensable role of a jury as arbiters of justice. That is all these families have ever asked for."

In October, families lost their bid to take the case to trial at the state's superior court level. Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled in favor of Remington -- the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15, used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six educators -- by granting its motion to strike the case.

(Read rest at link)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/health/sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-connecticut-supreme-court/index.html?sr=twCNN120116sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-connecticut-supreme-court1010PMStoryLink&linkId=31816135

I feel for the parents, they are still hurting after 4 years, but they are targetin the wrong group. The gun ban crowd are using them to go after firearm manufacturers in an attempt to run them out of business via lawfare, and that's what the law that protects manufacturers was designed to prevent. The process is the punishment, in this case.

The gun banners would have you believe thst, after Bushmaster sold that AR-15 to a wholesaler, who sold it to a retailer, who sold it to the shooter's mother, who was then later murdered by the killer and the gun was then stolen and used to commit those horrific acts, that Remington, who didn't even own Bushmaster at the time, is somehow responsive for "negligent entrustment" and they are at fault civilly for the shooting. Utterly ridiculous.

When this case is finally thrown out, the pain of the families will be compounded by the fact that the gun banners are unlikely to stick around and help them pay all of Remington's lawyers fees.

[Eleanors38]

1. You can always find a lawyer to sue for anything.

The language of the families' attorney suggests he might worry about some decision which "takes judicial notice," as I understand the term.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. re: judicial notice

"In a civil case, the court must instruct the jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive." But that's a federal rule. I'm not sure what CT has.

[Eleanors38]

3. Thanks. I thought notice was a universal within the canon of Anglo jurisprudence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. You're welcome, it could be

I just don't know.
It is at the federal level.

[J_William_Ryan]

5. Gun Banners

What’s utterly ridiculous is the notion of ‘gun banners’ – no one is seeking to ‘ban’ guns.

Even if the families should prevail, which of course they won’t, no firearm manufacturer will be put out of business – to maintain otherwise is baseless demagoguery.

[jmg257]

7. Huh - then what the hell is an "assault weapons ban"?

How do you "keep them off the streets" unless you ban them from their owners?

[TupperHappy]

8. Of course you claim that, cause you know gun bans don't sell anymore.

So, the alternative is death by a thousand cuts.

I have yet to see a so called "gun safety" measure that was ever too extreme for the Brady Campaign, or VPC, or Everytown, or any of the dozens of other astroturf organizations out there.

No, it amounts to gun bans on the installment plan. Whittle it away, restrict here, license there, fee after fee after fee. And eventually, you will have "reinterpreted" the Second Amendment effectively out of existence.

[ManiacJoe]

9. The unfortunate problem the victims have

is that all the wrong doers died in the event. Thus the victims cannot get their "pound of flesh" disguised as justice.

The only one left with deep pockets is the gun manufacturer, who complied with all the state and federal laws to manufacture a legal product.

The sad part is that any lawyer willing to take the case shows his incompetence by doing so.

[yagotme]

10. Incompetence.

I don't think it is incompetence per se. It's the combination of the deep pocket aspect plus the political views of the litigators. I'm sure these lawyers aren't exactly on the "pro-gun" side of the argument anyway.