Connecticut High Court to Hear Sandy Hook Victims’ Case Against Gunmaker

By | November 14, 2017

  • November 14, 2017 at 1:47 pm
    mrbob says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 2

    When the courts get done with all of this the defendants, who will prevail, should be able to bring suit against the plaintiff’s and their attorney’s to recover the expense’s from this frivolous suit. The PLCAA was written exactly for this situation. In section (5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended. How could the intent be more clear.

    A L did not purchase the weapon, he stole it, a felony, from his mother and then murdered in could blood her and all of the innocents at the elementary school, multiple additional felony crimes. I wish the weapon had malfunctioned at least then those poor people would have had a chance to defend themselves. Unfortunately in this case the weapon functioned as designed and that was one shot for each pull of the trigger. Finding the manufacturer and others negligent due to how they marketed the product is of no relevance as the shooter was not the purchaser and the purchaser, I assume in no way demonstrated to anyone in the stream of commerce that they wanted the weapon to be used on herself or anyone else. She purchased it for the same reason that 99.9999999999999999% of Americans purchase any firearm and that is the enjoyment of recreational shooting, hunting or personal defense.

    Blaming the parties in this transaction for how the product was used would be like blaming a car manufacturer for advertising that their vehicle can go cross country and the operator messes up and hurts themselves or someone else.

    Again from PLCAA (b) Purposes The purposes of this chapter are as follows:
    (1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

    (5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

    The mentality in this country of always blaming the one with deep pockets has to end. William Shakespeare had it right in Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. The full quote is “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. Although this was most likely intended as a joke in the play and I do not intend for it to be literally a call to kill anyone, we need to stop the trial lawyers from killing our economy.

    • November 14, 2017 at 2:18 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 4

      About the time we think this case has gone away, it rears its ugly head again.

  • November 14, 2017 at 2:13 pm
    Jax Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not sure why the Connecticut court is willing to hear the case at all. If the manufacturer is protected by the PLCAA then forcing the manufacturer to defend themselves via some form of hearing is irresponsible. It sounds like the court didn’t want to be deemed ‘the bad guys’ for not going through the motions. Of course the plaintiff’s lawyers are smacking their lips over the potential financial windfall that would be theirs should the court decide that a lawsuit can go forward. That would force the manufacturer to the table to seek a potential settlement.
    The other side of this is the families that were so tragically affected by Lanza’s psychotic rampage. I can’t imagine how this must have hurt them all, but I also don’t see how any amount of money would ever ease their pain.
    I’d be shocked by loving parents that could place a price tag on their child’s life. Maybe forcing some manner of changes in the law would be comforting, but not money.

  • November 14, 2017 at 2:41 pm
    Retired UW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 8

    It is possible that the CT court may carve out an exception to the PLCAA. They may determine what many are claiming: an AR-15 style weapon has no practical use as a sporting gun; they are military or para-military in nature and should never have been sold for use by consumers.

    • November 14, 2017 at 4:27 pm
      Paul says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 3

      You are exactly incorrect. The AR15 has no military use, it is not used by any military in the world. With more than 5 million being owned by law abiding citizens, it’s specific class of rifle is “modern sporting rifle”, and used for both hunting and target shooting competitions. It’s versatility is what makes it so popular, because it is a modular design n and can chamber a number of differing cartridge rounds, from .22, .223, .300, 9mm and .45. Functionally, it works no differently than does a kid’s varmint gun or you father’s deer rifle.

      • November 15, 2017 at 9:30 am
        Fair Playing Field says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        You probably know more about this, Paul, but I’m pretty sure that the AR-15 was developed for military use, intended to replace the M1 Garand, with the idea that a smaller (yet higher velocity) .223 caliber round would allow field personnel to carry more ammunition.

        This same tack was taken by the former USSR and China, and NATO uses the AR-15, albeit with a different caliber.

        • November 15, 2017 at 1:37 pm
          mrbob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          Fair playing field you are correct if you are referring to the Armalite AR-15 which is a select fire automatic weapon adopted by the US military as the M16, but not if you are referring to the Bushmaster AR15 variant that was used by the evil perpetrator of this act which is a semi automatic weapon sold for civilian use and as Paul has properly stated is used by the civilian market for legal purposes such as target shooting, hunting and personal defense. Where I would disagree with Paul is that it has no military use. As is sometimes quoted but not substantiated from a Japanese General in WWII “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

          Certainly if the United States were invaded every firearm available would come to bear against the invader be it an AR15 variant or a .22 caliber pistol. Would the US military choose to adopt a semi auto rifle such as the AR15 for us by the infantry probably not but I do know that if my country were to be invaded, I would grab every weapon I own and defend her to my death.

          • November 15, 2017 at 3:25 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Mr. Bob, in today’s Army, infantry grunts do not carry a fully automatic version of the M-16; most carry a modified version, such as the M-4 which still shoots 5.56mm ammo, but doesn’t have a ‘rock & roll’ switch option. Some have a 3 round burst option, or single shot – no fully auto. They do, of course, have other fully automatic weapons available at the squad level.

        • November 15, 2017 at 3:15 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          Fair Playing: the weapon you are describing is the M-16A1. When first designed, it could be operated in fully automatic or semi-automatic. The AR stands for Armalite which is the company that designed them. None of the AR’s are fully automatic, at least not from the factory.
          The rest of your post is correct.

          • November 15, 2017 at 3:16 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            *****Sorry***** I didn’t read all the previous comments.

          • November 15, 2017 at 10:41 pm
            Fair Playing Field says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            The entirety of my post is correct. It appears a couple of you are a little quick on the trigger.

          • November 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm
            mrbob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Jax,
            According to current federal law any weapon capable of discharging more than one round per pull of the trigger is considered “fully” automatic. So therefor a 3 round burst which I agree is the standard today for military M4 weapons is an automatic weapon under the law. Further if you did the research you would find that Armalite did in fact call the weapon they sold the American Military and AR-15, it was the military that renamed it a M-16A1 just like that have there own name for a sedan that is used on base for transport of high ranking officers.

          • November 20, 2017 at 2:25 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Mrbob – since the original M-16’s were truly ‘fully automatic’ the change to a 3 round burst now makes them ‘not fully automatic’……federal law definitions, notwithstanding.

            Ask anyone who has operated both models – there’s a big difference.

    • November 15, 2017 at 9:33 am
      Fair Playing Field says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      The AR-15 most definitely has a practical application as a sporting gun. They’re used in long distance target shooting competitions because the higher velocity, smaller caliber round is more accurate, with less recoil to boot.

  • November 14, 2017 at 6:43 pm
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 2

    FWIW: one radio host today mentioned that ‘AR’ in AR-15 does NOT stand for ‘Assault Rifle’. It’s actual representation was stated by someone in the discussion, but I forgot what was said… however, it can be found online.

    However, nearly all lemming NEWS MEDIA outlets continue to improperly use ‘Assault Rifle’ in reference to the meaning of ‘AR’ in AR-15.

    – POLAR-15 BeaRepeal

    • November 15, 2017 at 9:11 am
      Fair Playing Field says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 0

      The “AR” in “AR-15” stands for “ArmaLite Rifle”. ArmaLite is the company that developed the model in 1959 before licensing it to Colt.

      • November 16, 2017 at 8:40 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Thanks. It’s no wonder I didn’t understand the phrase… it’s not a common word (ArmaLite), so it sounded like a garbled phrase to me, and I wasn’t focused on listening to the radio at the time.

  • November 15, 2017 at 9:48 am
    Fair Playing Field says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    By the way, given my comments here I’d like to point out that I’m not a “gun nut”. Guns are not my hobby and I don’t own any, but I was raised around guns by my career military father who is from Tennessee.

    I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I also believe that all guns should be registered, the sale of both guns and ammunition should be tightly regulated, and states should enact whatever regulations they feel are necessary regarding sales, registration, magazine capacity, whatever. If you don’t like the laws in your state, vote with your feet.

    The problem we have today is so many self-centered people (read: losers) have less respect for one another, do not understand the value of life, and seek attention with the idea that infamy is the equal of fame.

    • November 15, 2017 at 1:51 pm
      mrbob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Fair playing field, only problem with your logic is that a patchwork quilt of laws as you propose is a violation of the second amendment and PLCAA as currently written. I have no issue with the country choosing to amend our rules/laws, but can anyone point to another consumer product that has rules by state like firearms that go counter to federal law? 2A is pretty clear to me when it says shall not be infringed.

      Add to that the statements of George Mason, one of the authors of the 2nd amendment when he stated,
      “…to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

      • November 15, 2017 at 10:28 pm
        Fair Playing Field says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        I proposed no “patchwork quilt of laws”, Mr. Bob, so put the straw man away. States already have their own laws and regulations with respect to firearms, and as I stated I’m all for it. States’ rights, you know.

        • November 17, 2017 at 1:33 pm
          mrbob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          If each state has the right to adopt its own firearms laws in violation of the clear language of the 2nd Amendment then is it OK for the States to have their own rules regarding free speech or press? States Rights after all.

          • November 18, 2017 at 2:20 am
            Fair Playing Field says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Let’s try to stay within the realm of reality, eh Mr. Bob? My beliefs as stated are within our current framework of federal and state lawmaking.

    • November 15, 2017 at 3:19 pm
      Jax Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Fair Playing: I grew up hunting and fishing. I served in a combat arms branch of the military (we trained to use most of the light (small arms) and some crew served weapons.
      I still hunt and shoot for sport today. I own guns and like them, but I’m no ‘gun nut’ and I feel that that term gets thrown around very loosely. As far as I’m concerned, no ‘gun nuts’ should be allowed to own them.

      • November 15, 2017 at 10:51 pm
        Fair Playing Field says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        My use of quotation marks around “gun nut” was in recognition that the term can have varying meanings.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features