Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Marnoot on December 15, 2014, 10:19:04 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/15/families-newtown-shooting-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller
Why would a lawyer bother to take on a case like this at this point, when it will almost certainly be smacked down due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?
-
Why not sue the school and school district for not providing the proper security? [popcorn]
-
I'm wondering the same thing as you, Marnoot. Besides the ridiculousness of the lawsuit, the timing is strange, unless there is something else going on that they are latching on to.
-
Trolling for publicity and settlement
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Trolling for publicity and settlement
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I do believe you have hit the nail on the head.
-
Not trolling in rich waters for a settlement. The businesses would all be stupid to settle, since they're all pretty well covered by the aforementioned Act, and this will probably get dropped quickly. The claimed basis for the case is that such an evil gun shouldn't even be available for sale to civilians. Even without the lawsuit protection act, they'd have a tough time winning a case with the primary claim being that a business was doing something they don't like, but that is perfectly legal.
-
Their insurance companies will settle
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Perhaps they expect the case to be dismissed, and this is all just to feed their self-righteousness. I am really surprised they didn't name the NRA in the suit.
(seriously, when did "victim" become equivalent to "saint"?)
-
So, one of its evil features was that the caliber was "designed to penetrate a steel helmet." :facepalm:
Which means that for that one purpose, the 5.56mm had to be at least as powerful as all of its military predecessors in the last 120 years. At that point, why not sue the estate of Captain Desaleux (the inventor of the spitzer bullet)?
-
I can punch a hole in 1/4" mild steel plate with a cast bullet out of a .30-30 from at least 50 yards. I'm wondering if at least in part this is another sideways attempt on any ammo that can punch through body armor.
-
So, one of its evil features was that the caliber was "designed to penetrate a steel helmet." :facepalm:
Which means that for that one purpose, the 5.56mm had to be at least as powerful as all of its military predecessors in the last 120 years. At that point, why not sue the estate of Captain Desaleux (the inventor of the spitzer bullet)?
I thought steel helmets were never designed to be bullet proof. They were designed to protect against artillery shrapnel.
-
I thought steel helmets were never designed to be bullet proof. They were designed to protect against artillery shrapnel.
Just as your facts aren't expected to penetrate the emotional ignorance of a zealous anti.
-
IF the suit progresses, it will really cause problems for those who say there was no shooting and the whole mess was a false flag. [popcorn]
-
IF the suit progresses, it will really cause problems for those who say there was no shooting and the whole mess was a false flag. [popcorn]
They'll just claim the lawsuit is part of the fiction. No swaying the true believers.
-
They'll just claim the lawsuit is part of the fiction. No swaying the true believers.
There is always a crazy explanation waiting in the wings.
-
IF the suit progresses, it will really cause problems for those who say there was no shooting and the whole mess was a false flag. [popcorn]
I don't understand why there is so much idiot conspiracy theory around the Sandy Hook event and not earlier shootings ..... or maybe I am just mis-remembering things ... [popcorn]
-
I'm considering putting an order in for one of these. http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-parts/receivers/lower-receivers/stripped-lower-receiver-sku100003638-70749-52257.aspx?cm_mmc=external%20partners-_-AR15com-_-banner-_-BlackRifleWk3
-
My opinion...the suit was filed with the goal of achieving one or more of these objectives:
1. Quick cash settlement from insurance company.
2. Try to get a push for new laws against EBRs at the federal level if/when the suit fails.
3. Find an activist judge to set aside the law and allow the suit to go forward.
4. Set up an appeal seeking to get the law set aside.
5. Get lots of publicity for the lawyers.
6. Given some of the language in the documents, may be trying to lay a foundation for suits using consumer protections laws under some of the dangerous product liability precedent. Theory being that the item is inherently too dangerous for the consumer to safely use, so the manufacturer/sellers are liable for damages from the consumer use.
7. The start of a new attack on the firearms industry, trying to litigate them out of business, maybe funded by Bloomburg and Co.
-
I have to also now wonder if this is one of the pieces to "guns are a health issue".
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sandy-hook-families-file-lawsuit-against-gun-manufacturer-1418651798
Behind a paywall, but the article says the plaintiffs are proceeding under the 'negligent entrustment' exception of the Act. They argue that by selling assault rifles to the general public, manufacturers and sellers are then liable for any harm that arises out of the use of that rifle. It will be a stretch to argue that 'negligent entrustment' applies to the general public rather than a specific individual.
-
All their should to do is file an Affirmative defense under the PLCAA and it should go away. Unless the find an activist judge.
-
I don't understand why there is so much idiot conspiracy theory around the Sandy Hook event and not earlier shootings.....[popcorn]
Well, I for one have never seen conclusive proof that Connecticut exists, so I'm still open to the possibility that even the old maps were just part of the setup for this.
-
This seems wide open to a SLAPP countersuit.
-
Well, I for one have never seen conclusive proof that Connecticut exists, so I'm still open to the possibility that even the old maps were just part of the setup for this.
At this point in history I'm ashamed to admit it, but I used to live there .... so, sorry; it exists. :'( [tinfoil] :laugh:
-
At this point in history I'm ashamed to admit it, but I used to live there .... so, sorry; it exists. :'( [tinfoil] :laugh:
Sorry, but I've never seen conclusive proof that you're not just an advanced version of Eliza controlled by the same government that wants us to believe Connecticut exists.
-
Sorry, but I've never seen conclusive proof that you're not just an advanced version of Eliza controlled by the same government that wants us to believe Connecticut exists.
Put him on the case, he'll find the truth -- it's out there!
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sandy-hook-families-file-lawsuit-against-gun-manufacturer-1418651798
Behind a paywall, but the article says the plaintiffs are proceeding under the 'negligent entrustment' exception of the Act. They argue that by selling assault rifles to the general public, manufacturers and sellers are then liable for any harm that arises out of the use of that rifle. It will be a stretch to argue that 'negligent entrustment' applies to the general public rather than a specific individual.
Just though this argument through. If they make this argument, they will try to argue it is a question of fact, not of law, to take the decision out of the hands of the judge and place it in the hands of a jury. If they can do this successfully, they can try an emotional argument with the jury, and try to get a win on feelings instead of facts. This would encourage others to file suit, and again, try to bankrupt the firearm industry.
-
All their should to do is file an Affirmative defense under the PLCAA and it should go away. Unless the find an activist judge.
Anymore, you don't need an activist judge as much. More and more, judges are being reversed on appeal, and even disciplined, for granting summary judgment motions and dismissing cases without letting parties argue cases to juries. If they can successfully argue that this is a question of fact, not law, then each case would be headed to a jury trial. This would encourage more suits, and sudden;y we're headed towards the bankruptcy of the firearms industry in America.
-
For the benefit of us STEM guys, could you explain what you mean by "a question of fact, not law"?
-
For the benefit of us STEM guys, could you explain what you mean by "a question of fact, not law"?
My understanding is that means that the judge has decided that the law applies to the case at hand and the only question is whether or not the defendant did it. IANAL etc
-
In general, a question of law is left to the judge to decide. Questions of fact are left to the trier of fact, which is most often a jury. For example, if a person is being sued for a car crash at an intersection. Whether the light was red or green is a question of fact, for a jury to decide. Whether the law requires a person to yield to cross traffic is a question of law, left to the judge to decide.
In this situation, I'm afraid that the lawyers will argue that ARs are inherently too dangerous a product to put in the public possession, so the company is liable from a product liability perspective. Company lawyers will argue that there is no question of fact, and the law supports dismissal, citing to the protection law. Defense will argue back that it is a question of fact if ARs arw too dangerous for public use, so the jury must make that decision. The question may come down to the courage of the judge...will he take a stand against the case, callnit a legal issue, and throw it out. Or will the judge take the easy way out, let a jury make the call, and avoid any political angle on a gun issue...
-
Jury nullification = double edged sword
If jury nullification is legitimate then the argument can be made this tactic is legitimate.
We like to give the jury the ability to decide law when it works for us, here a jury deciding law could work against us.
-
I was ordering some Aero lowers, this thread decided me to change one of them to the cheap Bushmaster one linked above.
-
Jury nullification = double edged sword
If jury nullification is legitimate then the argument can be made this tactic is legitimate.
We like to give the jury the ability to decide law when it works for us, here a jury deciding law could work against us.
The blessing and curse of the jury system. We want a jury to have the freedom to make a decision, right up to the point where we disagree with the decision they make.
Jury selection would be huge. Plaintiffs will try to eliminate anyone with 2A beliefs for cause, while defendant will try to keep gun owners/shooters. Political ideology will likely have an impact as well.
-
With criminal trials we ask the jury a binary solution set. Do we really do that in civil trials? Do they always do percentage liability findings or is that only in some cases?
-
With criminal trials we ask the jury a binary solution set. Do we really do that in civil trials? Do they always do percentage liability findings or is that only in some cases?
Civil liability trials are generally yes/no: yes, the defendant is liable and here are some money damages for the plaintiff; or no, the defendant is not liable and the plaintiff gets nothing.
-
With criminal trials we ask the jury a binary solution set. Do we really do that in civil trials? Do they always do percentage liability findings or is that only in some cases?
Different states have different laws on this. Don't know Mass. law.
-
The blessing and curse of the jury system. We want a jury to have the freedom to make a decision, right up to the point where we disagree with the decision they make.
We want the jury to be able to not punish people for violating unjust laws. We do not want juries to be able to punish people because they dislike them, even if no law has been broken.
Also, http://bearingarms.com/sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-bushmaster-will-fail-heres/
-
We want the jury to be able to not punish people for violating unjust laws. We do not want juries to be able to punish people because they dislike them, even if no law has been broken.
Also, http://bearingarms.com/sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-bushmaster-will-fail-heres/
I hope that article is right. Just worried... (still saving for my AR, and don't want to see the crazy high prices again.)
-
I hope that article is right. Just worried... (still saving for my AR, and don't want to see the crazy high prices again.)
You can always get a lower or two now, that's the only serial numbered part that they can effectively ban.
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F1BUSHSL&name=Bushmaster+Firearms+.223%2f5.56+Lower+Receiver&search=bushmaster
-
You can always get a lower or two now, that's the only serial numbered part that they can effectively ban.
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F1BUSHSL&name=Bushmaster+Firearms+.223%2f5.56+Lower+Receiver&search=bushmaster
Might go that route after Christmas, but I sure would rather get a working rifle all at once...
-
Why would a lawyer bother to take on a case like this at this point, when it will almost certainly be smacked down due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?
That a lawyer did take the case suggests to me that it is neither a contingency fee job nor pro bono. Regardless of whether the suit is won or lost, the shyster lawyer gets paid.
-
One of the reasons capital cases are few and far between is that as soon as an announcement is made of a capital murder trial money starts flowing in to defend the defendant. More money means better and mores expensive defense counsel. Prosecution can't allow its litigators to be out qualified so the state has to up the ante and hire better and more expensive help. An arms race of sorts. Not positive but I suspect a similar situation arises when a high profile second amendment case show up.
-
Might go that route after Christmas, but I sure would rather get a working rifle all at once...
Here you go, nice cheap AR in great condition:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=459272273
=D
-
Evidence pictures show a Windam ME bushmaster, not an Ilion NY bushmaster
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn5.gunssavelives.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2FScreen-Shot-2013-12-28-at-8.49.07-AM.png&hash=d3035dbf7e25305c9172e338c95273e6fd20b8cc)