[Bumped to discuss resulting legal actions] Elementary school shooting in Connecticut. (Edit/Update - 26 reported killed, many of them children) (1 Viewer)

[DesertKajun]

i have family and friends in gangs but the dad in me thinks they need to id them and send them to alternative schools, you say no danger but i saw stabbings and heard of drive by shootings over issues starting in class. sure they might not do it in school but they can find out where you live. i was sent to an alternative school when we were in atlanta. looking back it was a good thing.


Posted from Saintsreport.com App for Android

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought that the gunmakers could be held liable. Any thought on how this ends up?
==============================================================================

Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle can be sued and potentially held liable in the 2012 mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The groundbreaking 4-to-3 decision overcame a federal law backed by the National Rifle Association and designed to immunize gunmakers from liability for the crimes committed with their weapons. Remington makes the Bushmaster.

The suit was brought by the estates of nine victims of Adam Lanza, who was armed with the high-powered rifle during his assault that left 28 dead, including 20 young children.

The court’s decision was narrow, with the liability for gunmakers based on how they advertise their weapons rather than on the sale of them to third parties who then commit horrible crimes. In its ruling, the court said companies that market military-style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies could be violating state fair trade laws...………….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/families-of-sandy-hook-shooting-victims-can-sue-gunmaker-remington-over-2012-attack-court-says/2019/03/14/4222b1ec-4671-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.7813e87fd994

 

[bclemms]

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought that the gunmakers could be held liable. Any thought on how this ends up?
==============================================================================

Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle can be sued and potentially held liable in the 2012 mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The groundbreaking 4-to-3 decision overcame a federal law backed by the National Rifle Association and designed to immunize gunmakers from liability for the crimes committed with their weapons. Remington makes the Bushmaster.

The suit was brought by the estates of nine victims of Adam Lanza, who was armed with the high-powered rifle during his assault that left 28 dead, including 20 young children.

The court’s decision was narrow, with the liability for gunmakers based on how they advertise their weapons rather than on the sale of them to third parties who then commit horrible crimes. In its ruling, the court said companies that market military-style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies could be violating state fair trade laws...………….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/families-of-sandy-hook-shooting-victims-can-sue-gunmaker-remington-over-2012-attack-court-says/2019/03/14/4222b1ec-4671-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.7813e87fd994

No way this goes anywhere, too much money will be fighting it.

Imagine every car manufacturer that had a commercial of their sports car on a track being held liable for every death occurred due to speeding.

There is a huge missing link between the gun manufacturer and the person using that gun as an offensive weapon against humans.

With that said, no company should have immunity.

 

[Dago]

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought that the gunmakers could be held liable. Any thought on how this ends up?
==============================================================================

Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle can be sued and potentially held liable in the 2012 mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The groundbreaking 4-to-3 decision overcame a federal law backed by the National Rifle Association and designed to immunize gunmakers from liability for the crimes committed with their weapons. Remington makes the Bushmaster.

The suit was brought by the estates of nine victims of Adam Lanza, who was armed with the high-powered rifle during his assault that left 28 dead, including 20 young children.

The court’s decision was narrow, with the liability for gunmakers based on how they advertise their weapons rather than on the sale of them to third parties who then commit horrible crimes. In its ruling, the court said companies that market military-style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies could be violating state fair trade laws...………….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/families-of-sandy-hook-shooting-victims-can-sue-gunmaker-remington-over-2012-attack-court-says/2019/03/14/4222b1ec-4671-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.7813e87fd994

Well thats great. So if somebody stabs me (my wife) i can sue the knife maker? If somebody takes a brick from my property and hits somebody in the head, do i get sued or the brick manufacturer?

 

[2fya]

??‍??‍

It what way should the gun makers be held liable for the actions of a lunatic?

Blame the lunatic

 

[mt15]

I’m not sure, but I think this is sort of the tactic used against tobacco companies.

Also, going from memory, the point of the suit isn’t the sale of guns. I think the objection is the type of marketing done by certain gun manufacturers. I saw some of the ads, and they were really hyping a military theme. A clear implication that if you want to kill a lot of people, these guns are your best bet. Or at least that’s the premise of the suit. If I’m remembering correctly.

 

[rajncajn]

Really bad thread to bump. Probably would have been best to start a new one. I saw the thread title and my heart skipped.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Really bad thread to bump. Probably would have been best to start a new one. I saw the thread title and my heart skipped.

Sorry about that rajn

I thought about a new thread but knew we had a long sandy hook thread and decided to put it here

Didn’t mean to upset anyone

 

[Saint_Ward]

Really bad thread to bump. Probably would have been best to start a new one. I saw the thread title and my heart skipped.

Good reminder that nothing changed.

 

[superchuck500]

??‍??‍

It what way should the gun makers be held liable for the actions of a lunatic?

Blame the lunatic

I’m not sure, but I think this is sort of the tactic used against tobacco companies.

Also, going from memory, the point of the suit isn’t the sale of guns. I think the objection is the type of marketing done by certain gun manufacturers. I saw some of the ads, and they were really hyping a military theme. A clear implication that if you want to kill a lot of people, these guns are your best bet. Or at least that’s the premise of the suit. If I’m remembering correctly.

That’s right. The case isn’t simply “sue the gun-maker because a gun was used” - it’s more a question of whether the gun-maker’s marketing strategy deliberately aimed to appeal to customers that may use the gun for mass murder.

And the recent decision only says that the theory is viable - proving the allegation will be difficult.

 

[rajncajn]

Sorry about that rajn

I thought about a new thread but knew we had a long sandy hook thread and decided to put it here

Didn’t mean to upset anyone

You're good. Anybody could do the same thing.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Well thats great. So if somebody stabs me (my wife) i can sue the knife maker? If somebody takes a brick from my property and hits somebody in the head, do i get sued or the brick manufacturer?

Did you read the piece?

The argument is around if gun companies can be held liable for how they advertise their products in a way that threatens public health. I doubt brick manufacturers are advertising their product as an efficient way to kill under pressure.

Avoidable hyperbole aside, I imagine this will never hold up as it progresses up the chain, as the courts are getting more and more conservative and if it makes it to the Supreme Court it will quickly get struck down imo.

 

[superchuck500]

Did you read the piece?

Clearly, no.

 

[Optimus Prime]

That’s right. The case isn’t simply “sue the gun-maker because a gun was used” - it’s more a question of whether the gun-maker’s marketing strategy deliberately aimed to appeal to customers that may use the gun for mass murder.

And the recent decision only says that the theory is viable - proving the allegation will be difficult.

It's an interesting approach, and I don't think anything will come from it

If I mess up my brand new SUV taking offroading can I sue the carmaker, since that's all they show in SUV commercials?

 

[superchuck500]

It's an interesting approach, and I don't think anything will come from it

If I mess up my brand new SUV taking offroading can I sue the carmaker, since that's all they show in SUV commercials?

Not really the same thing. Your off-road SUV use is neither illegal nor contrary to the public interest.