Gun Makers: You are be being sued - Page 1

Breaking news... Gun Manufacture's get ready to be sued....

 

Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the “legal sufficiency” of the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 used by Adam Lanzashould never have been made available for sale to civilians.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-suit-against-gunmakers-lives-7248610.php?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=CTPost%20Breaking%20News&utm_campaign=CTPost%20Breaking%20News%20-%20Sandy%20Hook%20lawsuit

As much as I am against guns, I disagree with the suit. IMO, it is a losing case. Guns were invented to kill and not to defend no matter what anyone says. Guns were invented to kill. To be fair, I didn't read your link so not sure what angle they basing the suit on but my first impression is unwinnable.

We hear so much about big Pharma conspiracies, I'm starting big gun manufacture conspiracy theory.

They promote violence in order to sell the cure, they are already in gov pockets so . .....

@GSD

The Sandy Hook families are taking the Gun Maker to court because they believe the marketing of military weapon grade firepower to the general public makes them liable and complicit (when they are used in mass murders.) So, yes, I don't see a conflict re: guns are made to kill people aggressively, not for defense; as is your POV.

But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.

The Gun Maker lawyers wanted to stop the lawsuit from getting any traction, by preventing the Judges from even hearing the case, claiming immunity under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This 2005 law is used to shield the Gun Makers, and sellers from lawsuits used in criminal activities.

The Judge ruled that in fact, such subject matter is not out of their jurisdiction based on PLCAA. Therefore, the law does not stop them from hearing the case, and now the families' lawsuit can move forward.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.

“They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”

Sen. Blumenthal, (Democrat) hails the ruling as : “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”

A timeline

In January 2015, the families of 10 victims sued the Remington Arms Company, which makes the Bushmaster; Camfour Holding LLC, the gun’s distributor; and Riverview Sales, the now-defunct East Windsor gun store where Adam Lanza’s mother Nancy legally bought the gun. Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother on the morning of December 14, 2012 with a .22 rifle before taking the Bushmaster and other weapons to the elementary school.

The lawsuit argued that Remington and the other defendants “unscrupulously marketed and promoted the assaultive qualities and military uses of AR-15s to civilian purchasers.”

On Dec. 11, 2015, Remington, Camfour and the gun store asked Judge Bellis to throw out the lawsuit, claiming immunity under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA . The PLCAA bars lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of a product that is used in a criminal action.

“The judge is saying the defendants are wrong that the federal statute strips the court of the power to hear the case,” Pandya (UCONN professor) said. “She says the law does not restrict the court’s power to hear the case.”

Pandya said the court’s decision does not stop the defendants from later seeking to strike or throw out the case on the merits.

In a secondary issue, Bellis affirmed the court’s jurisdiction. 

“The question of who - consumer, competitor, business relation, and/or an additional class of persons - has a

protectable interest pursuant to (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act) reflects a challenge to the plaintiffs’ legal interests, not standing, and does not affect the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims,” Bellis wrote. “Accordingly, the defendants' motions to dismiss cannot be granted on this ground."

Nine families and one survivor from Newtown have filed the case to hold sellers accountable.

“The gun industry reminds us all the time that guns don’t kill people, people kill people,’’ said Josh Koskoff, the Bridgeport lawyer representing the Newtown plaintiffs. “Therefore, the gun industry should be scrupulous about people they sell guns to and the types of guns they sell.’’

Cities and gun-control groups had been pursuing gun manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in liability lawsuits until Congress in 2005 passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which took the wind out of plaintiffs’ sails by effectively immunizing the gun industry.

So, now, we shall see what will be decided, ultimately, when the case goes to trial. The lawyers will be having their day in court, and that is actually, a very big deal.

“Until lawyers take cases that pave the way, all you have is a nation of naysayers,’’ said Koskoff. “The truth is that immunity and exceptions under the law are relatively untested. We don’t accept our case has a higher threshold than the Milwaukee case, which proved meritorious.’’

The mother should be sued posthumously. It was her LEGALLY purchased gun that she allowed her crazy son to get hold of to murder with.

Manufacturers of vehicles used to kill with need to be sued at the same time, along with every KNIFE manufacturer of knives used in mass murders.

Guns were invented to kill - cars, nope - knives, nope. You lose.

No, I don't lose. It's my opinion that anything used for deliberate killing, the manufacturers should be held accountable, if the gun manufacturers are being held accountable for the actions of criminals...logic 101

All those other things weren't invented to kill and some people aren't criminals until they lose it and kill someone. Plenty of sane responsible non-criminals kill and guns make it so easy. This particular gun was invented to kill in war and instead is now on our streets where it is doing exactly that killing. Logic 101 also states less guns equals less gun deaths. But you can't see it because your logic is clouded by your delusions of being safer, safer, lol.

I don't have delusions, but you you do if you believe what you just typed.

Okay no delusions, just deluded. More guns have equaled more gun deaths. You can't prove otherwise because the data show it to be true. So, you are throwing your logic 101 out the window by refusing to see the truth. Funny how biases can deluded a persons rational thinking and throwing out everything learned in logic 101 and common sense to hold onto those biases. Guns were not invented to defend. No matter how you spin it or how you use that logic 101 degree it adds up to death. So, more guns have led to more deaths and you can't spin it any other way.