Forums

Forum Menu
Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics

Newtown Families Sue Gun Manufacturer

JermanatorJermanator Senior MemberPosts: 16,244 Senior Member
in Second Amendment/Politics #1
The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defense.

I hope this gets swatted down fast, but I won't hold my breath. More here...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/families-newtown-shooting-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller/
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
-Thomas Paine
· Share on TwitterShare on Facebook

Replies

  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    #2
    My prayers go out to them, but I hope they lose from the get-go. Makes no sense to me to blame the gun type for the murder of their children. They can't strike out at the perp because he is dead.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    #3
    "The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defense.

    "The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the United States military to meet the needs of changing warfare," attorney Josh Koskoff said in a release. "In fact, one of the Army's specifications for the AR-15 was that it has the capability to penetrate a steel helmet."

    Oh, I'm sure they had penetration requirements and the old steel pots were not hard to shoot through......................

    Oh, this is just not true, at all. What BS they are spewing. It will cost the defense, but any expert witness can refute this.

    AR-15s are a civilian version of an M-16, semi-automatic NOT full automatic and they can and are used for hunting/home defense/target shooting. What malarkey.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    #4
    Considering that one of my AR-15's is a dedicated home defense rifle, and I have another that will be a dedicated hunting rig. Yea.:roll:
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    #5
    Law was passed in G.W. Bush's second term that prohibits suits by individuals against a firearms manufacturer for such acts by an individual. You can still sue for a defective product that causes injury or death. But not for someone using the firearm to commit murder.
      “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • DurangoKidDurangoKid Member Posts: 183 Member
    #6
    This has been tried before. The Liberals want guns controlled as tobacco. That way they can fill the pockets of lazy Democrat lawyers. The 2nd Amendment to the Bill Of Rights has with stood these attacks in the courts. The gun companies have settled law suites out of courts to reduce legal cost.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 12,143 Senior Member
    #7
    This is no different that suing GMC because I hit you with my Impala. Makes no sense to anyone that looks at it.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    #8
    tennmike wrote: »
    Law was passed in G.W. Bush's second term that prohibits suits by individuals against a firearms manufacturer for such acts by an individual. You can still sue for a defective product that causes injury or death. But not for someone using the firearm to commit murder.

    Sounds like a lawyer trying to make some money from the families, that are not aware of the Federal Law that prohibits these types of lawsuits.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    #9
    Nomadac wrote: »
    Sounds like a lawyer trying to make some money from the families, that are not aware of the Federal Law that prohibits these types of lawsuits.

    With the Federal law in place, if Bushmaster is smart they will have their lawyers file a countersuit for 10X what the moneygrubbing families are asking for and going full bore after them in court for court costs, lawyer fees, too.
      “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,577 Senior Member
    #10
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I hope this gets swatted down fast, but I won't hold my breath. More here...
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/families-newtown-shooting-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller/

    Let's sue car manufacturers when a drunk driver kills someone.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    #11
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Let's sue car manufacturers when a drunk driver kills someone.

    I'm all for that! Car manufacturers know that drunk drivers buy their cars and drive them while intoxicated. That's like selling guns to felons-in-waiting.
      “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • BigDanSBigDanS Senior Member Posts: 6,992 Senior Member
    #12
    tennmike wrote: »
    I'm all for that! Car manufacturers know that drunk drivers buy their cars and drive them while intoxicated. That's like selling guns to felons-in-waiting.


    Uh careful with that... they already have breathalyzer cut offs.... Stupid idea a can of air can bypass.

    D
    "A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    #13
    BigDanS wrote: »
    Uh careful with that... they already have breathalyzer cut offs.... Stupid idea a can of air can bypass.

    D

    15 day waiting period for buying a car. Background check on buyer. If a sale is from owner to private individual, then sale must go through dealer who does background check on prospective buyer. Convicted drunk driver in possession of vehicle liable for up to 10 years in prison and up to $10,000 fine if convicted. :jester:

    (We don't have a sarcasm font, Dan.)
      “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,046 Senior Member
    #14
    BigDanS wrote: »
    Uh careful with that... they already have breathalyzer cut offs.... Stupid idea a can of air can bypass.

    D

    Guy I used to know ended up with one of those on his truck. It takes a picture of you when blowing in the tube, and it will also flash a light when it wants you to hum. (He had a funny comedy bit about having to give his car.... pleasure... to get a ride). So, no- you can't defeat that with a can of air or a balloon.

    Funny story- when in college, I had to sign an affidavit from a court officer that I drove a convicted DWI offender's car for a state inspection. I was not going to blow on that thing just to test the brakes. Ick
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    #15
    Now is the time to buy AR15 rifles. If they lose the case - no problem, AR15s are at very favorable prices now anyway, so you didn't get ripped off and you have some very cool new toys. If they win the case, AR15 manufacturers and retailers will drop like flies and your rifles will appreciate greatly - and very, very quickly, to many times their purchase price. BUY NOW.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    #16
    Big Chief wrote: »
    "The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defense.


    Oh, I'm sure they had penetration requirements and the old steel pots were not hard to shoot through......................

    Oh, this is just not true, at all. What BS they are spewing. It will cost the defense, but any expert witness can refute this.

    AR-15s are a civilian version of an M-16, semi-automatic NOT full automatic and they can and are used for hunting/home defense/target shooting. What malarkey.

    "The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the United States military to meet the needs of changing warfare," attorney Josh Koskoff said in a release. "In fact, one of the Army's specifications for the AR-15 was that it has the capability to penetrate a steel helmet."

    OMG! Ya don't say? So was a Mauser, an 03 Springfield, and an M1 Garand. OOPS! I better shut up before they want to confiscate everything I own. Because just a whole bunch of rifles out there nowadays were once the design for a military weapon.

    Of course a Sleezeball Lawyer doesn't give a rat's ass as long as he makes his millions. And the real goal of the left is to conficate them all. Obama cracks me up with that line about "Common Sense Gun Control." His and the rest of the real "True Believers" real goal is to destroy the 2A and take away our rights.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • GunnerK19GunnerK19 Senior Member Posts: 1,095 Senior Member
    #17
    As tennmike stated. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901
    I'm a Conservative. How conservative? Only Alex P. Keaton has me beat.

    Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA, Pietta 1860 .44 snubnose
    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

MORE YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Sign Me Up
Advertisement