NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: GreyGeek on December 15, 2014, 05:31:10 PM
-
Stark and undeniable proof that "No Guns" signs do not make people behind them bullet proof, regardless of how much wishful thinking takes place in the minds of hopolphobes.
http://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html (http://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html)
In an article posted 3 hours ago (2:30 CST), which already has over 10,000 comments, it is reported that the families of nine victims are suing Bushmaster and the gun store that sold the Bushmaster AR-15 to Adam Lanza:
The families of nine people killed in the Newtown school massacre filed a lawsuit against the maker and sellers of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, saying the gun should not have been sold for civilian use because of its overwhelming firepower.
The lawsuit alleging wrongful death and negligence was filed in state court and announced on Monday — the day after the second anniversary of the shooting, which left 20 children and six educators dead and became a rallying point for gun-control efforts.
In addition to Bushmaster, the defendants are Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the now-closed East Windsor store where the gunman's mother purchased the Bushmaster rifle in 2010. Messages seeking comment from the defendants were not immediately returned.
The complaint says the gun allows shooters to inflict "unparalleled civilian carnage."
"In order to continue profiting from the sale of AR-15s, defendants chose to disregard the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement," the plaintiffs wrote in the complaint
Why don't they sue the psychiatrist who couldn't cure Lanza, or Lanza's father, who left his mentally ill wife? All but a couple of the last two dozen "mass" shootings have been done by people recently off of their psychotic medicines.
The arguments used in the lawsuit could be used against any handgun manufacturer. This approach is really just another attack on the 2nd Amendment.
-
I fail to see how its the gun manufacturers fault.
-
I was under the impression that the firearm was the property of the mother
-
This is really nothing new, Previous cases have been brought against Gun shop, Gun manufacturer, etc. and WON! They are taking this to the next level in that a ruling here would not only be for monetary gains, but set a precedence for outlawing the AR style rifles.
-
I wonder how many of these tragedies might be related to the meds? Who prescribes unstable at risk individuals drugs that can cause suicidal thoughts and homicidal tendencies?
I don't know what Lanza was on but I can't imagine anyone or anything evil enough to do what he did. I think the law suit should go towards his psychiatrist and the pharmaceutical.
Suing Bushmaster makes about as much sense as suing Chevrolet and Budweiser when someone gets drunk and drives.
http://m.naturalnews.com/news/038353_gun_control_psychiatric_drugs_Adam_Lanza.html (http://m.naturalnews.com/news/038353_gun_control_psychiatric_drugs_Adam_Lanza.html)
http://www.cchrint.org/2013/03/15/was-connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza-taking-psychiatric-drugs/ (http://www.cchrint.org/2013/03/15/was-connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza-taking-psychiatric-drugs/)
-
Although there could be a 2nd A adgenda, it is more likely a lawyer(s) smelling money in the waters. Also likely the same lawyer(s) planting the adgenda. It is unfortunate how easy it is for anyone to sue anyone. It is one thing when justice is involved. Totally another when politics and money are involved.
-
Smoke and mirrors. Unlikely to go anywhere since there is a law barring suits against firearms manufacturers for their illegal use.
Be kind of hard to get around this: (Bush's Fault)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92. The National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as, "...the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."[1]
In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.
A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004 after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.
The final bill passed only after an amendment was added that mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal had been prevented from being added onto the bill.
The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.
-
Davis Industries got sued out of existence before the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act came to be. Cobra Firearms got the design & tooling for the Big Bore derringers when Davis went bankrupt in 1998.
-
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/394727/why-gun-control-advocates-lie-about-guns-charles-c-w-cooke (http://m.nationalreview.com/article/394727/why-gun-control-advocates-lie-about-guns-charles-c-w-cooke)
-
I'd like to see those who imposed the pretend no guns policy sued, since they are responsible for there being no armed response until the police got there.
-
I'd like to see those who imposed the pretend no guns policy sued, since they are responsible for there being no armed response until the police got there.
+1
The blood of the innocents is on the hand's of those that create gun free zones.
-
They should sue the school district, they should have known how vulnerable the teachers and children were, and had armed security on campus.
Greg58
-
Now that in an idea I can get behind.