Judge Strikes Down Sandy Hook Suit Against AR-15 Manufacturer

Aim1 · Oct 14, 2016

This is good news. She cited PLCAA.

I know Hilary said that she wanted to repeal the PLCAA.

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/10/14/judge-strikes-sandy-hook-suit-gun-manufacturer/

Judge Strikes Down Sandy Hook Suit Against AR-15 Manufacturer

14 Oct 2016

Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis has struck down the lawsuit that Sandy Hook Elementary families had brought against Remington Arms.
Remington is the parent company of Bushmaster, the brand of AR-15 that Adam Lanza stole then used to killed 26 innocents at the school.

According to a Friday report from CBS New York, Bellis cited the 2005 Lawful Protection of Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects gun manufacturers from being sued in instances where the gun in question was legally made and sold. The AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook attack was legally made and was sold and registered to Nancy Lanza, Adam’s mother. He stole that gun from her, then shot and killed her before going to the school.

The suit against Remington was filed in October 2014. BBC News reported that court documents in the filing said, “There is one tragically predictable civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: mass shootings. Time and again, mentally unstable individuals and criminals have acquired the AR-15 with ease, and they have unleashed the rifle’s lethal power into our streets.”

harrygunner · Oct 14, 2016

A rational decision. Good.

Everyone vote to repeal Hillary.

barnbwt · Oct 14, 2016

Good. Granted, it's not like the PLCAA is even needed for this supposed protection (does it place additional liability on plaintiffs for frivolous suits, or is it just a restating of the core concept of liability & damages as it pertains to gun manufacturers?)

The height of stupidity they bring suit against Bushmaster for Newtown, but not Remington for the R51

(if your goal is to win settlements, there's far better options). I wonder if these gold-digging families-of-the-victims will get saddled with all the court costs like the few who played the odds after Aurora? Bloomberg's billions were suddenly mysteriously absent in that case, as I recall.

TCB

Aim1 · Oct 14, 2016

Good. Granted, it's not like the PLCAA is even needed for this supposed protection (does it place additional liability on plaintiffs for frivolous suits, or is it just a restating of the core concept of liability & damages as it pertains to gun manufacturers?)

The height of stupidity they bring suit against Bushmaster for Newtown, but not Remington for the R51 (if your goal is to win settlements, there's far better options). I wonder if these gold-digging families-of-the-victims will get saddled with all the court costs like the few who played the odds after Aurora? Bloomberg's billions were suddenly mysteriously absent in that case, as I recall.

TCB

I wouldn't necessarily say gold digging. Some of these people are in horrible pain and most likely honestly believe that it's the guns and gun manufacturers fault, not the criminals. If only he didn't have a gun he couldn't have murdered anyone in their minds.

WiTom · Oct 14, 2016

Criminal steals a car, crashes into someone who dies, very bad, but does the family sue the car company?

Dog Soldier · Oct 14, 2016

The "Bleeding Heart" concept has it's errors as well. If everyone was able to sue gun manufactures our arms industry would be destroyed. How many innocents would die because they were unable to purchase personal firearms. How would we arm our military?

barnbwt · Oct 14, 2016

I wouldn't necessarily say gold digging. Some of these people are in horrible pain and most likely honestly believe

As with Aurora, it was only a handful of those effected who had completely hitched their wagon to the antis for profit & prominence that stuck it out through an implausible lawsuit years after the event. Just because a person's in grief, doesn't mean they can't act on political expedience. I'm sure we'll be hearing sob stories any day now about how they've been stuck with all the legal expenses or a counter suit.

TCB

barnbwt · Oct 14, 2016

The "Bleeding Heart" concept has it's errors as well. If everyone was able to sue gun manufactures our arms industry would be destroyed. How many innocents would die because they were unable to purchase personal firearms. How would we arm our military?

Hint: the goal is to get them to stop selling to civilians

Swing · Oct 16, 2016

Considering precedent it isn't surprising. I truly feel for those that are still hurting from the event, but this course of action was misguided. The one responsible for that horrible act was the morally bankrupt nutbag that perpetrated the attack, not completely legal companies who had nothing to do with it.

V-fib · Oct 16, 2016

drunk drivers kill many every year and yet no one sues the car manufactures. anyway the FBI knew about Adam lanza back in 2004 they tried to interview him for hacking into government computers but his Liberal mother would not let them and po pooed it off as just harmless juvenile behavior. she did not have a good relationship with her son and bought the AR to try and buy his love. Why these firearms were not secured is beyond me. If she would have simply secured her firearms she and all the people at sandy hook would be alive today. gun manufactures should not be libel for stupid. They never bring this up in the liberal media.

ColoradoShooter77 · Oct 16, 2016

This was the proper response. I don't see anyone suing Budweiser for DUI death's, or pharmaceuticals for drug overdoses. If Hillary wants to go down this road....then fair is fair with all this other stuff.

She actually thinks she can bypass federal legislation with an executive order concerning gun maker liability. Good luck!

Zaydok Allen · Oct 16, 2016

Good to hear sound logic prevailed.

Olderbutwiser · Oct 16, 2016

WOW!! A judge that actually knows the law and applies it to the law suit in question. :thumbup:

Seminole · Oct 16, 2016

It's sad that we're actually glad when a judge follows the law.

wow6599 · Oct 16, 2016

"She actually thinks she can bypass federal legislation with an executive order concerning gun maker liability."

Of course she does, and how dare any of us sheep tell her differently .

I'm guessing there are a lot of things she will do with executive orders, but I digress........

barnbwt · Oct 16, 2016

" I don't see anyone suing Budweiser for DUI death's, or pharmaceuticals for drug overdoses"
I suspect if you look back to the early part of last century, and the latter part of the century prior, you'll find suits brought against brewers, distillers, and patent medicine makers leading up to their prohibition. But even an opiate overdose or methanol poisoning case is a far, far more direct liability than what is being argued here (maybe if Lanza's gun had blown up in his face out of battery and blinded him upon the first trigger pull, then there'd be a case for Bushmaster damages)

TCB

Ironicaintit · Oct 16, 2016

I'm so glad the suit didn't get any traction...
I'm kind of still amazed and appalled that people actually thought they had a viable case.

But then again; I hope I can never relate to the tragedy of a lost child, and the irrational logic that may follow.

Shame on those who use victims as props.

Pheasant Plucker · Oct 17, 2016

You will always get these lawsuits as long as the ambulance chasers are allowed to talk victims into proceeding with cases that have no merit. Until lawyers are held responsible for going forward with unwinnable and unreasonable charges with no consequence their will continue to be frivolous law suits.

Zaydok Allen · Oct 17, 2016

Seminole said:
It's sad that we're actually glad when a judge follows the law.

Yes it is.

franktheitaliantank · Oct 28, 2016

barnbwt said:
Hint: the goal is to get them to stop selling to civilians

+1

My question is: Why was that lawsuit even able to be filed when we have the PLCAA in place? However it is comforting to know that the anti-gun people wasted time and resources to file a lawsuit for nothing... I hope they're nice and stressed about it. (the anti gun crowd, not the victim's families... gotta feel sorry for them)

Frank Ettin · Oct 28, 2016

franktheitaliantank said:
+1

My question is: Why was that lawsuit even able to be filed when we have the PLCAA in place? ....

A civil immunity law can not guarantee that one will not have to defend a civil lawsuit. The PLCAA provides certain classes of persons/businesses with civil immunity for certain activities and subject to certain exceptions. But whether the activities are within the protection of the law, or the exceptions take the activities outside those protections, can be disputed; and in the event of such dispute, litigation will be needed to resolve the dispute.

P5 Guy · Oct 28, 2016

Why didn't they sue the school board for failing to provide adequate security for the schools?

Red Wind · Oct 28, 2016

P5 Guy said:
Why didn't they sue the school board for failing to provide adequate security for the schools?

What would constitute adequate security for a public elementary school? Tens of thousands of K-12 schools in the 50 states.
.A few once in a lifetime maniacs. This is never going to happen..

Judge Strikes Down Sandy Hook Suit Against AR-15 Manufacturer

member

Member

member

member

Member

member

member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Similar threads