Looking after the people from GUNS (AR 15)

[Doodoo]

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

[Lone Star]

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.

[glalt]

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!

[Lone Star]

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.

[papafarang]

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

[Lone Star]

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.