Judge rules Newtown families' lawsuit against gun maker can go forward

[Suzanimal]

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. – A lawsuit can go forward against the maker of the rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, a judge ruled Thursday.

Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.

Lanza, 20, killed 20 first-grade students and six educators on Dec. 14, 2012 with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle that his mother had bought legally. Lanza killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home with a different gun before going to the school a few miles away, and then killed himself as police arrived.

The families of nine children and adults killed at the Newtown school and a teacher who survived the attack are suing Remington Arms, the parent company of Bushmaster Firearms, which made the weapon used in the school shooting.

Lawyers for Remington Arms sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the federal law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products. They said Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.

Judge Bellis ruled Thursday that argument would be best made in a motion later in the process and is not grounds to dismiss the lawsuit.

Lawyers for Remington did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, argues there is an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others.

...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/15/judge-rules-newtown-families-lawsuit-against-gun-makers-can-go-forward.html

[dannno]

Lanza, 20, killed 20 first-grade students and six educators on Dec. 14, 2012 with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle that his mother had bought legally. Lanza killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home with a different gun before going to the school a few miles away, and then killed himself as police arrived.

Is there any actual evidence for this?

[Anti Federalist]

Hah hah...laws...lawyers...government judges.

[Dr.3D]

Considering that they interviewed the dead Principal after the whole thing was over, I'm still confused.

[navy-vet]

I still believe it was an exercise that is ongoing. A ruse....

[donnay]

Is there any actual evidence for this?

Evidence? "We don't need no stinkin' evidence!" Just move along now.

[devil21]

I still believe it was an exercise that is ongoing. A ruse....

Pretty much proven at this point. The evidence that SH was a complete scam is overwhelming to those that bother to look into the details. Will be interesting to see how a lawsuit goes, however don't forget that Bushmaster is now owned by the same insider venture capital firm, Cerberus Capital (Cerberus is the multi-headed dog that guards the gates of Hell), that was bailed out of bankruptcy by the Feds when they owned Chrysler and GMAC. Not exactly what I would consider an "unbiased" entity....

[Lucille]

http://dailytimewaster.blogspot.com/2016/10/your-good-news-of-day-2a-victory.html


This afternoon, a judge issued a ruling in a lawsuit that arose out of the Sandy Hook crime , Soto v. Bushmaster, that held the defendants were entitled to immunity from the suit.

The defendants in the case originally asked the court to dismiss the complaint under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which was enacted in 2005 to prohibit frivolous suits against firearm makers for criminal acts committed with their products by unaffiliated third parties.

In April, the court in the Soto case issued a highly technical ruling that found the defendants had filed the wrong type of motion to invoke the protections of the PLCAA. The court at that time expressed no opinion on the merits of either the complaint or the defenses.

The defendants renewed their claim of immunity under the PLCAA, this time by filing “motions to strike” the plaintiffs’ claims.

Here is the relevant language from the case under the PLCAA that the judge used:


Congress, through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act … has broadly prohibited lawsuits “against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms … for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearm products … by others when the produced functioned as designed and intended.” … The present case seeks damages for harms … that were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon by [the perpetrator of the Newtown slayings]. Accordingly, this action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by the PLCAA.

Note that Hillary has already suggested that if elected, she would issue an executive order - essentially an act of wrongful and unconstitutional legislation from the executive - that gun manufacturers would be liable for the acts of people who acquire their products...

[Anti Federalist]

Note that Hillary has already suggested that if elected, she would issue an executive order - essentially an act of wrongful and unconstitutional legislation from the executive - that gun manufacturers would be liable for the acts of people who acquire their products...

Kings and Queens of the CONstitution.

Just like the anti feds warned.
HVACTech

[HVACTech]

Kings and Queens of the CONstitution.

Just like the anti feds warned.
@<u><a href="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=21031" target="_blank">HVACTech</a></u>

Kings and Queens. Heaven and Hell. situation... NORMAL.
Lather, rinse. and repeat. but.. you know that hero. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A95hURldWig
do you hold the Russian Constitution in such contempt as our own?
http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm
what about the Chinese Constitution?
http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/node_2825.htm

is ours.. "special" to you?
or..
do you hate them all the same?

I bet both the Chinese and the Russians KNOW what role a "constitution"... plays... :eek:
do you?

Ender bunklocoempire CCTelander

[Anti Federalist]

Instead of worrying me with a bunch of nonsense, you might be better off worrying about whether the new UN regulatory fatwas are going to put you out of business.

All legal and CONstitutional by the way.



Kings and Queens. Heaven and Hell. situation... NORMAL.
Lather, rinse. and repeat. but.. you know that hero. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A95hURldWig
do you hold the Russian Constitution in such contempt as our own?
http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm
what about the Chinese Constitution?
http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/node_2825.htm

is ours.. "special" to you?
or..
do you hate them all the same?

I bet both the Chinese and the Russians KNOW what role a "constitution"... plays... :eek:
do you?

Ender bunklocoempire CCTelander

[HVACTech]

Instead of worrying me with a bunch of nonsense, you might be better off worrying about whether the new UN regulatory fatwas are going to put you out of business.

All legal and CONstitutional by the way.

people will NOT need cooling anymore? darn...

I HATE it when that happens! :)

[Suzanimal]

Connecticut's top court to hear Sandy Hook gun appeal

The Connecticut Supreme Court has agreed to hear a direct appeal by families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, whose lawsuit against makers and sellers of the assault rifle used in the 2012 attack was dismissed in October.

Connecticut's highest court on Tuesday said it would consider whether families of nine victims, plus one survivor, can recover damages from Remington Outdoor Co and others over the gunman's use of a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle in the attack in Newtown, Connecticut, which killed 20 students and six staffers.

The court's decision to take the case, just two weeks after the families requested it, was announced on Thursday in a statement from the families' lawyers.

Other defendants include the gun's distributor, and the gun shop where Adam Lanza's mother Nancy had bought the AR-15.

A state superior court judge in Bridgeport, Barbara Bellis, had dismissed the case on Oct. 14, saying gun makers had "broad immunity" under federal law from claims that the military-style AR-15 should not be marketed to civilians.

While the quick appeal does not foreshadow the outcome, it lets the families bypass a state appellate court, saving several months of litigation. Oral arguments have not been scheduled.

"This case raises critical questions about reasonableness and accountability" in the sale of assault rifles, Katie Mesner-Hage, a lawyer for the families, said in a statement.

Lawyers for Remington did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The families lawyers' did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Bellis had ruled that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the defendants from liability.

The families say a state law, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, justifies liability for the aggressive marketing of the Bushmaster to the public.

...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/connecticuts-top-court-hear-sandy-hook-gun-appeal-220326067--finance.html

[Weston White]

Could the defendants not make a valid claim of 'assumption of risk' by entering a gun free zone?

Could the defendants not argue that gun free zones are to blame for this incident and should be found unconstitutional?

Could the defendants not launch a wave third-party claims that the Bushmaster rifle is based on other similar models manufactured "military weapons" that are marketed just as "aggressively" on the national markets?

Could the defendants not quash the lawsuit with affirmative defenses that include: 1) they have no such legal duty as a tort because there are no laws preventing them manufacturing or them marketing such weapons to the masses; 2) the USSC has consistently upheld that the 2nd Amend. exists in the context of protecting the keeping and bearing of military weapons among all U.S. citizens, be they civilians or military personnel; 3) that their campaign of marketing is a protected act under the 1st Amend.--and that it in no way depicts and is by no means supportive to the events that occurred throughout the Lanza incident; and 4) that the plaintiffs have failed to show how their marketing of the Bushmaster had any effect whatever on the supposed shooter Lanza?

[kpitcher]

Are these same scumbag lawyers going after the car manufacturer for the recent Ohio State incident?

[Weston White]

Posting for reference: http://cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov/

[nobody's_hero]

Well, I don't know what they hope to accomplish with the lawsuit. Connecticut already tripled-down on their gun laws since Sandy Hook and no law-abiding gun owner in their right mind would (or should) ever want to step foot in that state ever again.

Should be relatively safe now since only criminals will be using guns in that state, instead of all the other normal gun owners.

[devil21]

What are they suing for? It was fake. Figured everyone knew that by now.