Looking after the people from GUNS (AR 15)

General Udon Thani topics only!
Post Reply
Doodoo
udonmap.com
Posts: 674
Joined: October 15, 2017, 8:47 pm

Looking after the people from GUNS (AR 15)

Post by Doodoo » March 15, 2019, 7:51 am

Families can sue gun maker for Sandy Hook school massacre:

Manufacturer of AR-15 Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook Massacre, Court Rules
Connecticut Supreme Court allowed victims’ suit to move forward over its marketing of the gun

Now the Families have an avenue to move on

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3904
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Looking after the people from GUNS (AR 15)

Post by Lone Star » March 15, 2019, 8:08 am

In US civil law, anyone can sue anyone. It doesn't mean the case has merit.

Suing a manufacturer for manufacturing a legal product that is misused by another has pretty much no chance of being upheld.

What's next? Sue auto manufacturers because a driver misuses a vehicle and kills someone? Sue a stainless steel flatware company because someone used one of their forks to stab someone? Ridiculous.

CT's Supreme Court can allow the case to move forward, but it's probably not going to end well for those bringing the suit, and I suspect it will make its way all the way to SCOTUS where they will rule on behalf of the gun manufacturer.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

glalt
udonmap.com
Posts: 1401
Joined: January 14, 2007, 10:35 am
Location: Nong Hin, Loei

Re: Looking after the people from GUNS (AR 15)

Post by glalt » March 15, 2019, 8:15 am

So, by the same logic, a drunk runs down and kills your child. You sue the car maker. No difference in that thinking. If we put a bounty on lawyers the country would be better off by far. Insanity!

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3904
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Looking after the people from GUNS (AR 15)

Post by Lone Star » March 15, 2019, 8:29 am

glalt wrote:
March 15, 2019, 8:15 am
So, by the same logic, a drunk runs down and kills your child. You sue the car maker. No difference in that thinking. If we put a bounty on lawyers the country would be better off by far. Insanity!
It would also make the alcohol manufacturer liable for damages. Legal product misused/abused.

Yes, insanity.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

User avatar
papafarang
udonmap.com
Posts: 2328
Joined: August 2, 2013, 10:14 am

Re: Looking after the people from GUNS (AR 15)

Post by papafarang » March 15, 2019, 8:43 am

since when have they built cars specifically to kill ? dumb example , an AR15 is not designed to be driven either, it's not a hunting weapon , it has one use , putting holes in humans. cars are insured ,you need to be tested so you can drive, cars are transport that have a use . but good point , guns should be insured and you should be tested so you know how to shoot people safely
the world is not my home, I'm just a passenger

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3904
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Looking after the people from GUNS (AR 15)

Post by Lone Star » March 15, 2019, 9:14 am

Some facts

1. The ruling by the CT Supreme Court was a thin 4-3 margin.

2. The user of the firearm stole it from the legal purchaser.

3. The case was originally dismissed in 2016 by Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis.

4. The case was dismissed as a result of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects gun manufacturers from being sued in instances where the gun in question was legally made and sold.

5. The Bushmaster was legally made and sold to Nancy Lanza, prior to it being stolen and used in a crime.

6. The majority opinion in allowing the case to go forward is based on how the product was advertised. However, the illegal use of the product was not executed by the purchaser of the product who may or may not have been influenced by any advertising. The Chief Justice did not overturn the previous judge's ruling. The case was simply allowed to move forward.

7. The legal owner and the thief/shooter are both deceased.

8. Because this case involves a federal statute, Remington may petition the SCOTUS immediately to hear the case.

I don’t see SCOTUS holding manufacturers liable for the misuse/abuse or illegal use of legal products by purchasers. Folly.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

Post Reply

Return to “General Udon Thani Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests