Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: WLJ on July 09, 2021, 01:15:41 PM
-
Didn't know if I should have just put this the NY thread but it is a bit different even if it opens up the possibility of the same or similar results.
Now a California judge has ruled that a lawsuit brought by survivors of the 2019 shooting at a Poway synagogue can go forward. The shooting, in which the murderer used an AR-15 rifle, resulted in one death and three wounded.
What the judge wrote in his ruling is headache inducing.
But the judge’s reasoning in allowing the lawsuit against the gun makers is…unusual. In his ruling, Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel wrote that Smith & Wesson sells . . .
…firearms that it knew could be easily modified to turn into fully-automatic assault weapons – even when its modified guns have been used in other mass shootings. It also fraudulently marketed its Rifle with known intent to put them in the hands of persons in a demographic particularly likely to cause extreme harm — and indeed harm is the epitomy (sic) of “cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard” of the rights and safety of others.
Looks like they're they're going after the retailer as well.
CA Judge Rules Smith & Wesson Can Be Sued for Synagogue Shooting Because an AR-15 Can Be Modified as a Machine Gun
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ca-judge-rules-smith-wesson-can-be-sued-for-synagogue-shooting-because-an-ar-15-can-be-modified-as-a-machine-gun/
If they get this it will open floodgates
-
marketed its Rifle with known intent to put them in the hands of persons in a demographic particularly likely to cause extreme harm
What demographic would that be?
Also, I can't recall. Was the AR used in this shooting modified to selective fire? Otherwise I don't get what that has to do with anything.
-
What demographic would that be?
They're just saying youts
Medel said the plaintiffs may also be able to sue on their claims that Smith & Wesson negligently marketed the rifle to youths on social media and video game-style ads.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Victims-of-2019-San-Diego-synagogue-shooting-16302184.php
-
Guess what reared it's head. Article doesn't go into exactly which "promises" they referring to
In Wednesday’s ruling, Medel said the plaintiffs had also alleged that Smith & Wesson had ignored its promises of new safety measures in a publicized settlement it reached in 2000 with the federal government, under President Bill Clinton, and several cities that were seeking to sue gun makers. Those allegations, if proved, could justify punitive damages, the judge said.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Victims-of-2019-San-Diego-synagogue-shooting-16302184.php
-
Meanwhile, a federal court points the finger at the Air Force for the 2017 Texas church shooting:
https://reason.com/2021/07/08/government-to-blame-for-texas-church-shooting-that-left-26-dead-says-court/
-
Meanwhile, a federal court points the finger at the Air Force for the 2017 Texas church shooting:
https://reason.com/2021/07/08/government-to-blame-for-texas-church-shooting-that-left-26-dead-says-court/
IIRC this was brought up within days afterwards but was pretty much buried in the media scramble to blame Trump.
-
The rule of law is dead, dead, dead.
-
Medel said the plaintiffs may also be able to sue on their claims that Smith & Wesson negligently marketed the rifle to youths on social media and video game-style ads.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Victims-of-2019-San-Diego-synagogue-shooting-16302184.php
You mean just like many car ads?
This is a slippery slope