BREAKING: Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington, Camfour Inc., and the East Windsor Gun Shop Allowed To Move Forward

legal-fundamentals-of-self-defense

Judge Barbara Bellis of the Superior Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut rejected a bid by Remington, Camfour Inc., and the East Windsor Gun Shop to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the families of the victims killed in the Sandy Hook massacre.  The original argument from Remington, Camfour Inc., and the East Windsor Gun Shop was that both the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act denied the Connecticut jurisdiction the ability to hear and decide the case.  Specifically that is one point in the language that the judge rejected–that the state court could not handle the case.

Also this would be the first case to be filed under an exception listed in the federal law.  One of the main points of the case is that the marketing efforts by Bushmaster (Remington Outdoor Company) played an influential role in the motivation of the gunman to conduct the crime.  There have only been two other cases that have gone to jury trial (one for, one against) with regard to the PLCAA.

Despite this ruling from the judge, the case itself will still have to be measured against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, federally.  Meaning that it is not decided, just allowed to move forward.  One step closer to “things not good”.

I read through the decision and honestly kept getting lost in the language.  So, if my above summary is incorrect, please call it out in the comments, and I will update this with the corrections.

The full decision was posted by the Wall Street Journal at: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Sandy_Hook_4.14.2016.pdf



Tom is a former Navy Corpsman that spent some time bumbling around the deserts of Iraq with a Marine Recon unit, kicking in tent flaps and harassing sheep. Prior to that he was a paramedic somewhere in DFW, also doing some Executive Protection work between shifts. Now that those exciting days are behind him, he has embraced his inner “Warrior Hippie” and assaults 14er in his sandals and beard, or engages in rucking adventure challenges while consuming craft beer. To fund these adventures, he writes medical software and builds websites and mobile apps. His latest venture is as one of the founders of IronSights.com; a search engine for all things gun related. He hopes that his posts will help you find solid gear that will survive whatever you can throw at it–he is known (in certain circles) for his curse…ahem, ability…to find the breaking point of anything.


Advertisement

  • Vitsaus

    Sounds like political chess. Its a CT court, correct? For political reasons there must be appeasement at the local level, even if the players involved know it won’t hold up at the federal level, at least they can look like they tried to fight the big evil baby hating gun company.

    • Blake

      This case wouldn’t have anything to do with Remington closing the Marlin plant that had been in CT for over a hundred years & moving production to Ilion NY would it?
      Naw, surely just a coincidence…

      • Kirk Newsted

        Doubt it has anything to do with that. CT probably paid to rent the moving trucks Remington used to move the plant.

    • Kivaari

      It is designed to attack the cost of doing business. Democrats hate guns, and anything they can do to hurt the gun industry is what they will do.

  • Luke

    I’m not a lawyer, but reading the judgement, it seems that the judge is merely refusing to dismiss the case on grounds that the court has no jurisdiction. It takes a different kind of motion (motion to strike) to have the case dismissed based on legal sufficiency. I.e., Judge Bellis isn’t saying whether or not the lawsuit has any legal merit or is likely to succeed, just that the court has jurisdiction to decide that. On both issues (PLCAA and standing under CUTPA), the judge merely decided that the questions are ones of legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s arguments, not questions of the whether or not the court has jurisdiction.

    The judgement specifically mentions that the defense intentionally motioned to dismiss (i.e., challenge jurisdiction), not strike (i.e., challenge legal sufficiency) and declined to have the motion to dismiss read as a motion to strike. Having lost the motion to dismiss, I suspect the next step is a motion to strike. I wouldn’t worry about anything until *that* gets ruled against.

    tl;dr – this ruling isn’t a big deal at all.

    • tts

      Thanks for making sense of the lawyer speak.

      • carlcasino

        Laws written BY lawyers FOR Lawyers. If you want to complicate something get a lawyer involved.

        • supergun

          Sometimes that is a good thing. It is called jury distraction.

          • carlcasino

            Call me Radical but I firmly believe that EVERY judicial district in America should have a pool of Professional Jurist that are paid a flat fee of, pick a number, 500 or 1000 $$ per jury setting. The beauty of my system is two fold. The jurors would get to know the Lawyers and their antics so playing on emotion would be removed from the equation. ( I bring up the ignorant jurors that awarded millions to a dufus that spilled hot coffee in his/her lap, sued and won millions for being an ignoramus). Then the Professional Jurist would know that no matter the Judges “Directions” they can rule anyway they please.

          • Kivaari

            What about jury duty that lasts a year? The citizen jurors can’t afford to serve. Professional jurors is a bad idea. They would be much more likely to be corrupted. Most jurors are totally ignorant. Most Americans have no idea of what the law is nor even who the vice president is.

          • carlcasino

            You just made my point ! Most Jurors are not capable of driving thru McDonalds without markers to direct them and a good lawyer is an expert at picking the best idiot for his case. If you pay a professional Juror at the rates I suggest , who needs a 600.00/wk job when you can make 1000/wk tax free. Duh! I will close my business of 25 years and travel the country for an increase of 400/wk , which tax free is like 1400 /wk . Call me at BR-549 , I’m available immediately.

          • Kivaari

            I get that now without work. We should fear a jury of our peers or easily corruptible pros and judges. I don’t have a good answer since the system picks ignorant peers or prejudging pros.

          • supergun

            Your idea sounds good. We tried that with the supreme court which was created to balance the power of the executive and legislature branches. Look where that got us. They are suppose to rule by the Constitution, but now they rule with their personal opinions or who ever pays and sways the most.

    • Gregory

      You are 100% correct. The courts only hear what is specified in a motion and rule on the exact language in said motion.

    • Mickey R

      This opinion is basically the judge telling defendants “you didn’t say the magic words, so motion denied. You should have filed a motion to strike, not a motion to dismiss.”

      I’m not familiar with Connecticut law, but I believe the judge had discretion to interpret defendants’ motion to dismiss as a “motion to strike” instead, but she declined to do so.

      • Luke

        Yes. That was addressed in the decision. The judge has explained that she has discretion but isn’t required to interpret it as a motion to strike. It also says that the defense wanted it to only be interpreted as a motion to dismiss.

        My assumption is that the defense wanted to try a jurisdictional strategy first and plans to submit a motion to strike that has proper motion to strike arguments if needed later (it’s now needed) rather than have the motion to strike decided based on their motion to dismiss arguments.

      • supergun

        Maybe a payoff.

    • john huscio

      My prediction is it goes to another judge higher on the food chain and gets tossed.

      • Luke

        My prediction is that *this* judge tosses it based on another motion. Of course, our predictions aren’t mutually exclusive 😉

      • supergun

        Waste of time and money. My question is why didn’t the lawyers make the right motion on a big case like this?

        • Rodney Steward

          A socialist judge!

          • supergun

            We have 4 of them on the supreme court.

          • Rodney Steward

            You’re right, of the 4, one is a Latino Drunk, and one is gay!

          • supergun

            No names please. What about the other 2?

          • Rodney Steward

            Big house lad dawgs!! 🙂

          • supergun

            don’t speak english

          • Rodney Steward

            LOL, LAP dawgs!!! I didn’t even see that!!!!

          • supergun

            Ohhhhhhhh. Your computer did it. What part of the country you from? I am from GA. GA bulldawgs, no pun intended.

          • Rodney Steward

            I can’t teach this computer nothing! But I’m one of those dumb ole Southern boys, I live next door, ROLL TIDE #16!!!! 🙂 🙂 :-), and of course NO PUN Friend!! I got family that lives in Tucker, GA.

          • supergun

            I thought you sounded like a Southerner. LOL. Roll Tide, yeap, y’all been doing that 2 long. Maybe Kirby can put a stop to that, but for right now, I am going to keep my mouth shut until he does. We live in the best part of the United States. Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Maybe throw in Tenn.

          • Rodney Steward

            I promise Kirby will be great for GA., It’ll just take a couple of years, but you’re right about where we live, wouldn’t want to live anywhere else! I’ve always liked GA., but that’s about it! 🙂

    • Bill

      A lot of motions get filed because they have to be – the attorneys have no illusion that their motion will pass, but have to in order to cover all the bases and mount any possible defense or action. Otherwise they open up issues of malpractice or subsequent dismissals, mistrials or appeals.

    • supergun

      Excellent comment. Any jury with any sane values realizes this is a ludicrous case. If the jury rules in favor of the people, then the health and sanity of our Nation has really gone down the river of no return.

    • Rodney Steward

      The strong hand of Obama!! But, look out cars and cell phones, you’re next!!

  • ChierDuChien

    Has the school district been sued for failing to protect the students ?

    • Martin M

      That would not do at all. Should the District be held liable for failing to provide a secure campus the community would bear the cost of the lawsuit. Their insurance would defend them tooth and nail, and in the event they lost the insurer would be forced to take steps to increase premiums (paid by the District via tax levy), and place new security requirements on the [schools] they insure, further increasing the cost to the community and possibly opening a can of worms neither the insurer or schools wants to open (like providing armed security on campus).

      It’s easier to sue faceless evil corporations.

      • Limonata

        The impacted community and the neighboring community are already paying the price. The school the children are in right now is temporary and at a neighboring town. That school and the surrounding schools have full time PD in town units and there is a guard tower where they have a pole to stop anyone coming in or out.
        The impacted community, has the same at many of its schools.
        I have to drive by the various schools because of my work. It is impossible not to see the PD units and it is probably done on purpose to show the PD presence.
        Gov. Malloy said no PDs should be at the schools, many towns in the state pretty much told him, FU! Malloy caved and is even having the state fund some of costs of the PDs at the schools although the state is about $1B in debt and CT is listed as one of the worst states for pension underfunding.
        In the meantime, Bloomberg/Murphy/Blumenthal et al use the families for fund raising and politics.
        I don’t believe that they could win the lawsuit in question. Just like the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect anyone, they will say the same for the schools. Then, just like with gun control, while the Police have no duty to protect you, we will not give you any means to protect yourself either. They will rule that the schools have no duty to protect students, nor does the town need to provide any nor can students be allowed to protect themselves.

      • TexTopCat

        Yes, you are correct. However, what will it take for us to remove the killing zones known as “No Gun Zones”?

        • Bill

          Is it relevant? By far the majority of homicides occur in “Gun Zones.” Of course the idea of a gun-free zone is illusory and won’t deter a criminal or someone who is mentally ill but businesses and agencies should have the right and freedom to set their own policies.

          • TexTopCat

            Most homicides occur between members of criminal gangs, however, the issue was mass killings in public places and almost everyone is in a “No Gun Zone”. The only exception is the Gabby Giffords example and that is questionable since the gun exclusion zone at political meetings

          • Kivaari

            Around 75% of the murders happen between people known to each other. That isn’t saying, as the gun grabber like to say, mean family members are killing each other over a burned meal. It means that when a home owners kills a burglar, and the burglar is the drug addict living next door is described as “is known to the shooter”. Over half of all murders are done by suspects and victims both having felony or other limiting factors that should prevent them from owning guns. With out assault rifles, we would just see a few more people murdered with hammers, as they do today. More people are beaten to death with clubs, than are killed with rifles of all types.

          • TexTopCat

            I certainly agree with your statements. Now, there are certainly people that a threat and are not kept long enough in prison (if at all) for serious crimes. My thinking is that anyone that too dangerous to trust with a gun should not be allowed in public without a keeper. With that said, there are lots of reasons to become prohibited for things that I disagree with, for example Martha Stewart or Veterans that need help with their book keeping.
            Also, at some point a person should have an automatic method to get back their rights, both voting and 2A rights. We also need to be aware that over 1/2 of the NICS denials are reversed on appeal, but appeals are not “suspended” by Obama’s orders.
            There is a lot of work to be done on the legal/political side to get to a reasonable set of rules that are effective and not “infringements”.

          • Kivaari

            Agreed. There are quite a few very good “former felons”, that can’t get their rights restored. Non-violent crimes, like poor bookkeeping and tax returns, or as an old fellow city employee, he was convicted of burying street striping paint next to the city sewage treatment plant. From memory only, I even think it was latex, that could have been flushed down a drain. The feds swooped in and he was the first person convicted under the federal law doing such a dastardly thing. He could have simply left in a corner of the city shop, and it would not have been a crime, just a bigger hazard than if it was buried. Too many good people have felony records for stuff that wouldn’t amount to a parking ticket most places.

          • Kivaari

            Don’t risk driving through DC, MD, MA, NY, NJ, CT, LA, SF or just about any democrat controlled large city. Democrats hate guns and gun owners. Lawfully (under federal law) transiting through NJ and DC can result in felony conviction.

          • Kivaari

            Most mass shootings have been in gun free zones. In Chicago the whole city was essentially a gun free zone. Why do black thugs kill each other? What about all the shootings in DC, Baltimore, Newark and the like. Those places are all GFZs for the common man. Thugs don’t obey gun laws. Look at Los Angeles, where almost no CCWs are ever issued. The permit holders aren’t killing people at random. It is the illegal gun owners that do that.

          • Bill

            When has violent crime ever been “low” in Chicago or the other cities you mentioned? Historically they’ve always been hellholes. I don’t know why black, or white, or any other thugs kill each other; that’s a complex criminological question, and more or fewer laws will have no impact on it. Plenty of murders and violent crimes are committed without guns. What’s your point? New York City’s violent crime rate is lower now than is has been since they started keeping records, and the gun laws there are obviously horrible.

          • Kivaari

            Why has crime increased in those liberal cities, even after decades of anti-gun laws? Why is it that people living in free states see dramatically less violent crime? Why are states with a long history of pro-gun laws, have significantly lower crime rates?

          • Bill

            Who knows? Increased population density? Changes in the economic picture? Increasing unemployment? Chemtrails? There are WAY more variables to crime rates, high and low, than just the presence or absence of guns.

            Alaska has a long history of “pro-gun laws,” I guess you’d call them, and a relatively low homicide rate, but sky-high levels of domestic violence, drug and alcohol related crimes, thefts and on and on.

          • Kivaari

            Why, does it happen in long time democrat controlled places, and not in conservative places? The only state having a long history of extreme liberalism is Vermont. Few state gun laws, just federal.

          • Bill

            I don’t get your point – are you talking about now? When this very blog has an article about measures to repeal Colorado’s mag ban? Washington DC, where Heller was decided? Why does “what” happen in “liberal” places? Newark isn’t “liberal,” and neither is Baltimore, or Oakland or Detroit.

          • Kivaari

            How many people have been issued permits in DC? A handful only. DC police refuse to make the permit process reasonable. LA wont issue permits except to big dollar donors and the connected. You might remember when LAPD hired a black police chief, the first one, and that chief could not pass the state POST test. As chief of police the county refused to issue him a permit. Since he was not POST certified he did not fall under that exemption. What? All the places you mention are liberal domains. Too liberals think they are middle of the road places. It’s like NYC celebrities. They don’t know anyone that holds differing views since they only hang out with fellow travelers. They think they are middle of the road. How does the black populations in Newark, Oakland, Detroit and Baltimore vote democrat. MDs governor, Malloy wanted to outlaw as many guns as possible. Gun control fanatics populate those places. If it was reversed, the people rights would be intact.

          • Kivaari

            The repeal hasn’t happened. It was pretty much going to be turned around after 90% of the sheriffs said they would not enforce it. That’s a small victory. Washington and Oregon residents lost the right to sell. loan or gift firearms without the cost of using a FFL holder. WA sheriffs for the most part said they wont enforce that law either. Liberal state lawmakers will keep shoving unpopular laws in the path of freedom. Nothing they passed has prevented crime.
            The tiny Colorado reversal, if it passes and is signed into law is nothing compared to the loss of rights the people of New England, WA, OR, CA, DC has been subjected to.

          • Bill

            We’re just going around in circles: DC brought in the Heller case, Chicago gave us McDonald. Look at the number of “small victories” that have stacked up over the last 20 years. If the .gov is really out to control guns, they are doing a lousy job of it. Of course there are places with stupid laws, and I would lump in those places that tried to mandate that all their citizens own at least one gun as being equally stupid and pointless, if not counter-productive. Laws change – and in the firearms field they are becoming more, not less, relaxed overall. Recall also that the “good old days,” if they ever existed, also predated cases like Terry, Mapp, Escobedo and Miranda that actually put teeth into the Due Process Clause: having all the guns you wanted meant relatively little if your other rights weren’t fully recognized, unless you were, or are, the kind to live in a compound. There are more legal restrictions on government behavior now than ever.

            There’s minimal reliable, valid rigorous research that shows a relationship between guns and crime, either positive or negative. People who claim the more guns equal less crime are just as off-base as people who claim that more guns result in more crime.

          • Kivaari

            Isn’t it odd how crime has gone down as Americans own more and more guns? Isn’t it odd that where harsh gun control laws exist, crime is higher, than where few gun laws exist? Why are gun involved crimes so common where they are illegal to own or use?

          • Bill

            Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Crime isn’t that simple. Gun involved crime occurs EVERYWHERE, regardless of the number of guns, high or low. You just can’t simplify violent crime to an issue of guns, there are far more variables involved. New York and Chicago have relatively similar population densities and restrictive gun laws, yet violent crime in one is high and low in the other. Why is that? How could NYC drastically decrease it’s violent crime rate over the course of 30 years without significant changes in local gun legislation?

            How can Americans own more and more guns if the sky is falling and all these “new” laws you are complaining about are actually restricting new gun ownership?

            This is just going in circles. You’re jumping from claiming that there are new draconian gun laws to crime issues. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on whatever this issue is.

          • Kivaari

            When did gun laws in those places lower crime?

      • Kivaari

        People don’t care if the taxpayers foot the bill. It’s like suing any big government or company, it doesn’t hurt anyone in their minds.

      • Len Jones

        You want secure schools. All schools around here have resource officers, you sign in at the office to get into school not just walk in and go where ever you want. You have to pay up in taxes if you want secure schools or move away.

        • Kivaari

          There have been school resource officers in places where school shootings took place. Only a couple of the officers were in the right place at the right time. Too many SROs end up being RSOs.

          • Bill

            There was a SRO at Columbine. VT had it’s own PD, as do many universities and school districts. Even having cops on site isn’t going to prevent a loon from acting out.

          • Kivaari

            That is my point. Cops can’t be everywhere. It is why more people packing guns on staff is a better idea. Trained adults with guns will be more likely to interdict a killer, than a lone SRO on the other side of the campus. Columbine was handled poorly. Had that been a small town, chances are the one or two cops on duty would knw to go in and take care of business. After Columbine many departments changed the “active shooter protocol”. Yep! They finally started to act like small town cops. The new approach, wasn’t new. Police in San Diego let the San Ysidro McDonald’s shooting go on while cops were present in the score. One of my LTs was a senior commander for that. He never forgot how the police failed the public, his biggest mistake in life.

          • Bill

            And I believe 7, or 17, school districts in CALIFORNIA are arming teachers. There were CCW carriers at the Giffords shooting. The cops at Columbine handled it exactly as they were trained to at that time. I’ve trained an entire county’s worth of school districts, and most of the departments on active killers. But guns aren’t magic – just having them around without well-trained, skilled users is pointless.

          • Kivaari

            Wow a whole 7 or 17 school districts in California. How many are in LA or SF? Guns are not magic. Guns give good people a CHANCE to possibly help. All we want is a chance to change the outcome of an attack. Without guns, your chances go way down and you become victims. I want to have that chance. I have stopped two felony crimes. The first was knife attack-kidnapping attempt, the other an assault with a pipe.

          • Bill

            And in the vast majority of places you have that opportunity. You’ve chosen to focus on the ever-shrinking places that still have Draconian gun laws. There are far more states with shall-issue and may issue carrying options than 50 to 100 years ago. Aren’t there more guns in people’s hands now than any time in the past?

            If you insist of focusing on *just* the negative, and refuse to recognize the great strides made in gun rights in the last decade to 20 years, nothing I can say will influence that. And the prog-gun lobby and politicians are counting on your fears, cause that’s how they make their money.

          • Kivaari

            Wrong. Since Sandy Hook many millions of Americans have had their rights further limited. If millions of gun owners are further restricted, while others are seeing improved conditions we need to focus on those states where the citizens are being harassed. We living in free states, should not give up on those in slave states. When most of New England denies people rights, we need to point it out and fight to help the people in those places. Many people vote with their feet. Others can’t simply leave and risk being arrested for keeping their guns. If you can’t use them in the open, it’s as good as confiscation. The last 20 years have improved for many people.
            Why should we not sit back and let the anti-gun forces chop millions of people out of their gun rights? A felony conviction for having spent cartridge cases or dud ammunition in DC is not right. For trying to register guns in NJ after you move there is not right. Being denied the ability to load more than 7 rounds into your 8 shot M1911 is wrong.

          • jcitizen

            I saw a news item on TV the other day about a municipality finally deciding to arm a group of teachers in each school, and keep the ID of which teacher a secret. The idea being, it is too late by the time the police arrive – this was the first sane approach I’ve seen for a long time, and much cheaper than hiring Resource Officers, which are mostly unarmed as well. They said they would receive special training similar to LEO handgun training. It was only voluntary, but I’d bet they didn’t have a problem finding volunteer teachers, I’d be willing to bet!

          • Kivaari

            That is an excellent approach. There are many skilled teachers that would be safe to pack and use firearms. When it spreads to more schools, we may see a significant reduction in death and injury in those schools having sane gun policies. It’s like cops. Most never need to shoot another person, but it’s a damn good idea to carry a gun.

          • jcitizen

            Here! Here!

          • Kivaari

            Who is sitting back ignoring the success we have seen in many states? Look at how many millions of Americans have been put under the boot of anti-gun policies. We gun owners celebrate the victories like Heller and McDonald. We rejoice when states implement constitutional carry (we are at 9 or 10 free states now).
            Let’s not sit back and accept the bad laws that keep getting piled onto a large number of good people.
            Guns are not magic, but they are the best tool for the job. Thousands of people defend lives daily thanks to having a gun.
            More lives are saved than are hurt.

  • Angrybell

    The court ruled against the gun manufacturers by construing the argument as being solely based on jurisdiction and not on legal sufficiency. A court needs to have jurisdiction to hear a case. No jurisdiction, a court must dismiss. A court may hear something that it has jurisdiction over but may dismiss it if the complain lacks legal sufficiency.

    I have not read the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants so I can’t say whether the court is being willfully blind or if the defense counsel failed to use the rift language for their motion. Either is possible.

  • Kelly Jackson

    People forget that Bushmaster paid out 2.5 million in the DC sniper case and Mohammad didn’t even buy the gun, he shop lifted it. That was the whole reason this law got passed in the first place

    • Kivaari

      The dealer that lost the gun to theft was also hammered.

  • Mike

    So are you going to lose the “Firearms Not Politics” tagline? We cant avoid the politics. This is apparently no refuge, so either own it or do don’t but you need to pick.

    • DaveP.

      You may not believe on politics, but politics (insofar as ever being able to buy guns again) believes in you.

      • Scott

        I don’t think that’s the point. The point is that it’s flatly stated: here it’s about “Firearms, not Politics”.

        • DaveP.

          Was the political party the judge belonged to mentioned? No. Was the political party that supports this kind of lawfare against the RKBA mentioned? No. Was the politics of the plaintiffs mentioned? No. Will the RKBA be negatively affected if the plaintiffs win? Yes, especially as the precedent is used to sue every other arms manufacturer out of business.
          So where’s your “politics”? Why is this article somehow not proper or acceptable?
          Come to think about it, what possibly could be the unifying element behind the (very) few voices that can be absolutely relied upon to spout “Hurr durr, I thought it was ‘Firearms not Politics'” every time an article about a new gun law or a RKBA-related court case comes up? Could they be trying to force their own politics on everybody else by demanding a news blackout of certain subjects they get embarrassed about? Hmmm…

          • Bill

            Maybe some of us would like a firearms site that didn’t pee itself and blaze into uproar every time something that might possibly be even remotely negative about firearms hit the news. I can get all the righteous panic I need from elements in the firearms lobby.

          • Kivaari

            If it an unjust attack on our rights, it needs to be mentioned. Remaining in self imposed ignorance about laws and lawsuits means things happen, and it’s too late.

          • Bill

            I’m not about self-imposed ignorance – I’m opposed to EVERYTHING being bawled about as an “unjust attack on our rights.” Sure enough, in a post about a lawsuit that will go nowhere, someone faithfully raised government confiscation, Ruby Ridge and Waco, in an era where more jurisdictions than ever have decriminalized carry, silencers are available at most LGS and every second article is about an SBR or Class 3 item, stuff that would have been unheard of 20 years ago.

            There is definitely no shortage of websites and blogs that push firearms politics to the extreme, having ONE that doesn’t see a conspiracy every time George Soros farts or that Pakistani UN troops are massing in Mexico to come for our guns doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

          • DaveP.

            Perhaps if you gave up your guns, you’d feel better. You certainly don’t seem to like the company you keep, and not having to deal with all of that cognitive dissonance (“Gee, I like guns but I just feel so superior to those folks who want me to be able to own them… “) you’d lower your blood pressure.

          • Bill

            Well, I don’t keep company with fat tubs of lard who think they are Constitutionalist heroes by carrying their AR into Walmart, or with lobbyists who want my money, or politicians who are pandering for my vote, or people who use phrases like “from my cold dead hands” or “vote from the rooftops,” but I’m fine with the company I keep and I check my BP daily and it’s fine, thankyouverymuch, even though I have to deal with self-righteous bungclamps on a daily basis.

    • livingonenergydrinks

      To quote the Big Lebowski
      “This affects all of us Dude”

    • G B

      I’d rather read a blog that says “Firearms Not Politics” and is about 2% politics than a blog that “owns it” and is about 90% politics.

    • Rock or Something

      It’s news about a lawsuit involving firearms. The blog did not express an opinion about the Judge’s (rather contorted) decision one way or the other.

      I remember some people getting their underwear in a bunch when this site posted news article about various states suspending certain reciprocity agreements with other states, claiming it was “politics”. I pointed out it raised awareness for some conceal carry individuals that they may not be able to do so legally when traveling to those states.

      Can’t please everyone nowadays.

  • Geoffry K

    If CT rules for the plaintiffs, then Remington and the other defendants will appeal to a Federal Court and most likely win.
    Then those idiots that are suing will be on the hook for ALL the Defendants costs.
    Didn’t that happen in another case? And the Brady Bunch bailed on the people who sued, even though they backed them. Couple hundred thousand, wasn’t it?

    • Fox2

      The Denver movie shooter case. Parents of one of the victims were re-victimized by Brady. Funny thing is, one of the parents had worked for Brady, IIRC.

  • Kivaari

    The case will flounder. Federal laws protect the legal commerce in firearms. The suit against RSR, Glock and Norinco failed in the same way. That was in regard to the LA shooting of the Jewish Community Center and killing of the postal worker. Bufford Furrow is serving life for those crimes. All the parties on the defense side only acted in compliance with the laws. This is the law that Clinton and Sanders want to eliminate. Sanders had supported the law until this election. He has to adapt to the wishes of the democrats. Democrats, as a national party, always attack gun rights. Local democrats can vote against such laws, until the pressure is applied. They will follow the party lune, regardless of how unconstitutional it may be. Never vote (D)..

  • Zapp Brannigan

    I understand wanting to hold someone accountable for this insane tragedy, but the blame is 100% with the now-dead idiot mother who taught her deranged psychopath son to use firearms and left those guns unsecured for him to use at whatever time he wanted.

    The notion that guns are almost toys or no more dangerous than a hammer has to change though. Many people show more concern with the danger of kids and the stove than kids and guns. Kids don’t need to have access to guns. In a household with kids, guns need to be secured so that those kids can’t access them.

    • TexTopCat

      The mother did pay the ultimate price for her part. Adam is also dead as a result. However, the basic fact is still that if the staff/teachers of this school would have been trained and armed, no child would have been harmed. The “elephant in the room” is “No Gun Zones”. We have to learn how to stop doing silly and dangerous acts like allowing “No Gun Zones”

  • Darhar M.

    Hope those people in Sandy Hook that are blaming & suing the wrong people have deep pockets to pay for all of these legal proceedings when they loose as well as any lawsuits that may be filed against them (if any).

    One anti-gun Judge letting the cases proceed does not make for a win on appeals which are sure to follow.

    • FarmerB

      No, but it will empower the next generation of political power to undo this “nasty” law that protects companies who make real guns from laws that apply to toy guns. You’re going to hear a lot more about this even (especially!) if it gets thrown out – because I suspect that’s what they want.

      • Darhar M.

        That depends on the makeup of the next generation of politicians as
        well as what is going on in the US at the time.

        There are a lot of young combat veterans entering politics so the landscape
        is ever changing.

        • Mystick

          Of course, then you see the zombie masses emerging from our esteemed “learning center” colleges and universities with degrees in leftist fascism… I think they might have the numbers, unfortunately.

  • kn1023

    Lucky gunner v. idiots 2: Remington boogaloo

  • Funeral guy

    Typical short-sighted Democrats. Who’s going to arm the police and even the armed forces? Is the government going to get into the gun manufacturing business? Can’t you just see the firearm made by government committee? Unreliable, poorly made and expensive as hell. The gun cat is out of the bag in this country. They can only guess-timate how many firearms are in private hands. Most put the number above 300 million. A gun doesn’t bio-degrade and the basic technology hasn’t changed much in over a hundred years. Than there is the act of confiscation. How long will the American public put up with televised Wacos and Ruby Ridges a few times a week? Will the military and police forces turn on fellow Americans including family, friends and neighbors? For many people the abrogation of the Second Amendment will be proof that the government has declared war on the citizenry. Will the American people voluntarily downgrade their status to subjects? They have a name for what will ensue with confiscation. It’s called Civil War.

    • TexTopCat

      I recommend that you read/hear a book called “Lincoln’s Myth”. It is a fictional novel but has a lot of real facts and functional ideas. The opening paragraph says a lot.

      • jcitizen

        Wow, that does look interesting! This coming from a guy(me) that doesn’t like reading books.

    • Kivaari

      The Government used to be in the gun business. Like Springfield, Harper’s Ferry, Red Stone Arsenal and many more. The government uses civilian workers now and back then. Many WW2 plant workers were seriously injured by exposure to chemicals used in ammunition and explosives. Today the military plants are run by civilian contractors, that get the job on a bid basis. But the feds own the plants.

      • Bill

        The .gov is still in the gun business: the CMP. You’d think if They Were Really Out To Get Us, that program would have been vaporized long ago. It has to be one of the tiniest, least powerful agencies in the government.

        • Kivaari

          If you don’t think liberal democrats and a few rogue republicans are not out to control and take out guns, you have not paid attention to anything. Look at how Obama screams for bas, Clinton’s campaign is using anti-gun laws as her main theme for stopping we the people. Where have you been since the GCA ’68? How about the laws passed in ’86? How about the AWB ’94, and the desire of liberals to re-institute it? Look at all the states that have outlawed “assault rifles” and magazines over 10 rounds, and 7 rounds in NY.

          • Bill

            Clinton barely mentioned guns until 2 weeks ago: like all Dems she remembers the bloodbath their party took the LAST time they tried significant anti-gun legislation. She’s pandering to her base. There are 50 states – what percentage of those have mag limits or AWBs? What happened to the nationwide AWB? What libs “desire” has nothing to do with what they can accomplish.

            How many states have shall-issue CCW laws in 1967? How many have them now? Which state has NO laws pertaining to the purchase or carry of concealed handguns, has never had any, legalized suppressors , and is still known as one of the most liberal in the nation and is the base for a Socialist candidate who supports the Second?

            Now it’s practically required that you carry a gun in Arizona – in the good old days you had to check it at the city limits. The only thing I miss from the pre-68 days is the ability to mail order guns direct to the house. Now I have to order them on the web and take the 20 minutes to drive to my friend with an FFL to do the transfer.

          • Kivaari

            You really have no idea about gun laws. Clinton’s husband, the rapist in chief, have been on gun control for ever. The dems lost in ’94 over the gun laws. Good to see them today where much of America has rejected their ideas. But we have many worse laws across the country in democrat controlled states. All states have gun control laws. All dealers have to follow the federal laws.
            You certainly are not up to speed about legislation nationwide. The people are fighting back, and now 9 or 10 state no longer require a permit to use one’s 2A rights. But, as those states improve things, other states are taking guns away. Confiscation is rampant in the NE states and CA.
            Clinton has spoken her anti-gun stance for her adult life. If you think she just started 2 weeks ago, you really are out of touch.

          • Bill

            No, I’m completely in touch. The laws in place when I bought my first handgun in 1977 were far more restrictive than those today. Many, many gun owners drink their lobbyist’s Kool-Aid containing 50% fear and 50% self-righteous victimization when in fact, from both a market perspective and a legislative perspective, we’ve never had it this good. Clinton may have spoken an anti-gun stance her entire life, but she, and every other Dem, remember their history, and want to keep their offices far more than they want to ban guns. It took one assassination to spark the GCA of ’68, but the antis can’t build up realistic legitslative traction after all the mass killings we’ve had in the last 20 years. Don’t give me Colorado: that’s 1/50th of the Union.

            “Confiscation” is rampant? Any figures or evidence to back up that claim?

          • Kivaari

            Bill, Have you not observed the new laws put into place following Sandy Hook? Like NY, CT, MA, NJ, DC, CA, MD and the like? In SOME states the laws have loosened. That’s a good thing. Can you just walk into a store in California and buy a 20 year old S&W M36? Well, no you can’t. Can you buy an AR15 without a bullet button and piles of 30 round magazines? No, you can’t. You face felony charges for introducing those items into the sate. In NY you can’t even load an 8 round M1911 magazine with 8 rounds. In DC, they still will arrest you for having empty cartridge cases. In NJ, don’t stop at a rest stop without fear of being searched by a trooper, and you have a gun. Or like NJ where a young man moved into the state and tried to register his guns. He was convicted and sent to prison. A letter writing campaign to Gov. Christie got the sentence commuted, but no the felony removed from his record. Look how CA is confiscating guns without PC, Same in NY state where they are doing the same.
            Yes, we see many states getting better, more in line with the constitution than in the past. 9 or 10 states have constitutional carry where no permit is required. Then we have states outlawing the ownership of hollow point pistol ammunition. Why?
            The whole idea of HP ammo is to stop bad guys and lower the risk to innocent bystanders. Even NYPD had been ordered to carry FMJ ammo as the selectmen thought HPs were too much like Dum Dum bullets. Ignorant people. After NYPD officers ventilated a man with 41 rounds of Winchester USA promotional ammo, they did reconsider and allow cops to have them.
            West coast liberal states have all tightened gun laws. The worst is CA, but OR and WA have clamped down on the citizens. When I lived in WA I had several NFA guns. Had I died I couldn’t even leave them to my kids. I couldn’t sell them in the state. I Idaho I stop by the police department and the chief says “hello” and signs my ATF From 1 applications without question. That is because Idaho is a free state that doesn’t outlaw the ownership of NFA guns. A friend of mine has 28 machineguns and a few DDs. He and I are not a threat to anyone, except bad guys.
            Gun owners are fleeing the slave states. It is refreshing to see CA retired cops moving here and saying they wanted two things. More guns and a lower cost of living. It makes sense they sell their house for $750K and buy a nicer home here for $250K. They then spend their CA pensions here. An excellent state of affairs. Too bad that some others move here and want us to become another CA.

          • Kivaari

            JFK, RFK, MLK and massive riots where blacks took up arms, and gun control has always resulted from racism, religious bigotry and a fear of poor white trash. Where were you when it all happened?

          • Bill

            Right where I am now. Even prior to ’68 getting a CCW license was impossible in my state, if you wanted an AR you bought a Colt or an Armalite AR180 and the only place you saw silencers was in the movies.

            Dont mention racism when every mass shooting that has sparked even the mention of gun control has been conducted by a white guy, with the possible exception of the VT killer and the Beltway snipers, though I don’t recall any calls for additional gun control after their escapades, and VT resulted in exactly nothing in the way of further legislation. DO mention bigotry when talking about banning Muslims from entering the US, or putting Mosques and communities under .gov surveillance.

            The entire state of Georgia was a “gun-free” zone when founded – look at it today. I don’t think ANYONE there is as hindered by gun laws today as they were in the past. At exactly what point in our legal history do you want to revert back to? The good old days, when you had to check your guns with the town constable in Tombstone or Dodge City upon arrival?

          • Kivaari

            You sure are easily influenced by misinformation. Regarding “white giy(s)” being behind all of the mass shootings. Seriously? If you think that, you really have not studied the issue. Think back a ways and you will remember these:
            Long Island Railroad shooting (a black)
            DC Naval Yard (black). Charollete (black)
            Santa Barbara 3 by knife 2 by pistol (N. African Arab)
            Umpquah CC (latino/black-Muslim)
            San Bernardino (2 Arab-Muslims)
            Nashville Naval Station (Arab-Muslim)
            NYC attempted bombing (Black Muslim)
            Boston Marathon bomb and gun (2 Arabs- Muslims)
            Christmas Underwear Bomber (Latino-Muslim)
            The DC Snipers (2 black-Muslims)
            Seattle Coffee shop (black Muslim)
            Paris (Arab-Muslims)
            Belgium to Paris train attempt (Arab-Muslim)
            NYC three day stabbing (Black)
            London bus attacks (Muslim)
            Spain train attacks(Muslims)
            Every day in Chicago (blacks)
            (2) US military recruiting station (Muslim)
            George Jackson Brigade (mixed white, blacks, Latins, gay lesbians-commies)
            SLA (mixed commies)
            Puerto Rican attacks from ’50-’80s (Latins-commies)
            Australian coffee shop (Muslim)
            Georgetown Starbucks (black)
            Good Guys (Asians)
            Virginia Tech 33 dead (Asian)
            Quebec gun (Muslim)
            Canada vehicular homicide (2 Muslims)
            London beheading (2 Muslims)
            AIM bombings, shootings and arsons (Native Americans) I was involved in two of those cases when a nearby tribal police were involved and we gave an agency assist.
            NO !!! It isn’t the leftist illusion that only white guys do bad things. The left considers all violence to be rooted in white society. If blacks shoot blacks, it is because white made them do it.
            Well, no it isn’t.
            You are a typical anti-gun leftist. Ignore facts and lie to make your point.
            Regarding the old days, very few places limited the packing of guns in town. Such laws were common where NON-whites were denied their rights. The lawmen did not enforce the law if a white was packing a gun.
            All anti-gun laws started as anti-race or religious or poor rednecks. In particular blacks were denied gun rights, even after the Civil War. Jim Crow laws denied blacks many rights. You forget that the NRA is the oldest US civil rights organization that had a major platform of restoring gun rights to free slaves. Leftwing KKK-types still lynched blacks. The NRA wanted that to stop.
            Yes, there are so-called rightwing groups that still do not want minorities to be armed. They are in the minority. I was involved in two very important cases involving white power groups. It was good to see the guilty go to prison or get killed.
            You should NOT repeat the lies about mass killings being a white mans criminal path. Over 50% of mass shootings and bombings are committed by minorities and/or mixed race groups.

          • Kivaari

            You don’t think ANYONE is hindered by gun laws? Seriously? The good old days, where killings were considered lawful if you shot a guy that gave you an “evil eye” or “stink eye”. Wyatt Earp was sitting having a drink with a fellow North Idaho resident, when the drew his gun and killed a man at another table. Earp didn’t even do more than ask, “Why, did you shoot him?”. Earp was a Kootenai County Deputy Sheriff at the time. It is now in Shoshone County. The good old days weren’t so good. More men did die from falling off horses than gun fire. But, like blacks today, if you don’t respect them, they get all wound up and do so violence to show they need to be respected. The NO GUNS IN TOWN was rare in practice. It was a good idea for TV shows of the ’50s when Hollywood was already shoving gun control.

        • Kivaari

          The civilians running that program are not making firearms, simply selling surplus equipment.

      • Fox2

        RSA made chemical munitions, not firearms. Building I worked in 30 years ago was a mustard load line. There are still supposedly places that are contaminated with Mustard &c.

    • Kivaari

      Many people want us to be like the UK. Where they think cops are unarmed. Except 20 years ago about 25% of British cops were armed. Many more are now armed, since it is insanely stupid to do police work without a gun. Like the Charly Hebdo shooting, where the unarmed cop was murdered. Paris police officers had a choice to be armed or not. I suspect that cop on the sidewalk regretted his choice to go unarmed.

      • jcitizen

        All crime studies I have read point to an increasingly violent crime rate in the UK, and an apparent tendency of UK politicians to blame it on the Chunnel. My Dad thought it was curious that claims were always made of how peaceful it is in Europe, and how the police don’t even need to be armed, but when he went there, it was common to find ordinary patrolmen carrying sub-machine guns. You don’t see the usual US lawman hauling around ordinance, despite the way the news magnifies each terrorist incident. Yes, when the SWAT gets called out all hell breaks loose, but you don’t see them driving down the street everyday, like you do in Brussels right now.

        • Kivaari

          Small town and rural America has a lower crime rate than the UK and western Europe. When crime stats are given by the anti-gun crowd they leave out most of central and eastern Europe, as it plays hell with the facts. They also leave out the developed nations in South America.
          A couple decades ago Liverpool had the highest rate of crimes against person in the developed world. The myth of a peaceful UK and Europe is simply that a myth.
          NYC is about the only place where civilian police pack machineguns on foot patrol. We carried HK MP5A2 or M4 carbines on patrol. They stayed in the car unless the call required a stronger response. Handguns are for defensive use by cops when they are not expecting trouble.
          The British Isles are quite violent. Alcohol and drug use is more common than most modern nations. It is why Brits have a lower life expectancy. Leftist want us to be like Scandinavia, but they don’t want to have to pay for the “free” services people have. Taxation in much of those places exceed 70%. Sure they all get a months paid vacation, but it costs them a ton.
          We have it very good in America. Our trouble spots are the same ones that existed 80 years ago. Democrat controlled enclaves where violence has been the norm. They also share the anti-gun laws that only impact good people. They also share a common thread, blacks, Latins or Irish thugs. Guess who controls the local law makers. It’s the blacks, Latins or Irish mobsters.

          • jcitizen

            My argument is that proponents of gun control argue that the simple availability of guns is what causes the crime, as if people were predisposed to crime in a prejudiced generality – which I reject as wholeheartedly as well as racial prejudice! I really don’t think that being rural or suburban has a thing to do with it, especially since, as a youth I was just as likely to cause mischief in urban as rural centers as a kid. I did create a lot of that as a young pup – not sure why, but it did give me a great perspective on the problem, as most urban crime is based on juvenile violations. All kids want something to brag about among their peers, even though they don’t want their parents to find out!

            The only time I’ve seen NYC carry NFA ordinance on patrol was, (besides prohibitions) during terrorist upticks on the scale of Homeland Security threat level. All other times they can’t even carry a automatic pistol/rifle with more than seven rounds!! Curiously, a stupid New York politician passed a law that prohibited even the police of carrying anything that held more than seven rounds!!! We haven’t heard the last of that controversy, and it isn’t over yet, as far as the political back lash!!

  • Paul Guerro

    Everyone has a right to their day in court. David LaGuercia is a crook and deserves the high jump.

    • Mickey R

      “Everyone has a right to their day in court.”

      I could not disagree more with this statement. No one has a right to pursue a frivolous suit in a court of law.

      • Bill

        It’s only frivolous if it isn’t your case. A judge or jury will eventually decide whether or not any case has merit.

        • Mickey R

          “It’s only frivolous if it isn’t your case.”

          The Federal Rules say otherwise. Sanctions can be (and have been) imposed on litigants and their attorneys for bringing and maintaining frivolous lawsuits.

          • Bill

            And arguing that a case is frivolous is a high bar to meet. I know, having been the target of jailhouse lawyers and sovereign citizens, and am no fan of frivolous lawsuits, but also know that what may seem frivolous to one person is by no means frivolous to somebody else, like when a restaurant serves someone 180 degree coffee and it ends up welding their genitals shut.

          • Mickey R

            It’s frivolous because it is precisely the sort of case the PLCAA prohibits. The “negligent entrustment” argument is wholly without merit, and the case should be thrown out and the attorneys sanctioned for violating FRCP Rule 11.

          • Bill

            And that could very well happen, when it gets to a federal court.

  • Ivan

    Oh, that means I can sue sporting companies and tv channels because they influence dudes to crush peoples heads with baseball bats? Yay!
    /sarc

    • Uniform223

      When I was younger there was some kind of court case against Warner Brothers for their Looney Tunes Cartoons.

      A child harmed another child because that kid saw it happen on TV.

      We still see it today with groups that blame TV shows and other media for dysfunctional acts by individuals…

      • Kivaari

        Typical leftist views. They always want to blame someone or something besides the actual criminals.

  • datimes

    The lefties will have their way. Obstacles like the Constitution are swept aside. Anyone notice how 0bama had no opposition?

  • Lew Siffer

    This is not “politics,” this has to do directly with the cost and availability of firearms. The dream of the lawyers and the government is do to firearms what they did to tobacco. Get a “master settlement” where huge sums of money are paid by the industry to the government or to new private bureaucratic entities. Then prohibit private lawsuits (so you or I can’t sue and get any of that money). They will spend some of the money for absurd anti-gun ads similar to the disgusting anti-tobacco ads we are assaulted with now. They will spend some of it on state medicaid costs because guns cause “public health” costs when someone is shot. The rest of it can disappear into the bureaucracy, while the cost of firearms and ammunition doubles, or triples, to pay for all this. How much does a pack of cigarettes cost now compared to twenty years ago? Is the cigarette industry any less wealthy? Have Americans stopped smoking? The tobacco settlement made lawyers obscenely wealthy, created new agencies and jobs to give to political patrons, gave the states money to expand medicaid, kept the tobacco companies in business making billions, and did almost nothing to stop smoking. Everyone involved profited, and we, the American citizens, lost. And now they see dollar signs again, this time from firearms. The will do it IF WE LET THEM.

  • spiff1

    Every automobile and appliance manufacture should pay attention to the case here! Liberal Judges will eventually destroy the USA…

    • Bill

      Uh, this case will get tossed because 1: the protective statute, and 2: all the case law that had indemnified automobile and appliance manufacturers from liability when their product is used recklessly, negligently or criminally. No one is going to successfully sue a van manufacturer because their product was used as a rape-mobile.

  • iksnilol

    I wonder who would be sued if I were to drive drunk and hit somebody?

    I mean, should you sue the manufacturer of the vehicle? The producer of the alcohol? Or whoever gave me a driver’s license?

    • Creepermoss

      Think like they do- sue the guy who maliciously attacked your defenseless car. He invaded your safe space via your windshield, so ask for at least a million 🙂

      • Len Jones

        And that right there is how democrats think

    • DaveP.

      There have been suits- successful ones- against the bar the driver was served at, and the bartender who served him. The logic was that they should have known the drinker was not safe to drive, and cut him off.

      • Daisuke0222

        I agree, but there’s no corollary between the drunk driver and the bar/bartender that served him and the Sandy Hook case. Neither Remington nor the dealer who sold it lawfully had any way to know that the perpetrator would steal it and use it in a criminal way. Seems to me that to be successful, the plaintiffs would have to show that the defendants knew or should have known, that the guns would be used criminally. That’s an awfully high bar.

        TBH I’m not sure why PLCCA is even needed. Any manufacturer should be free from responsibility for the misuse of their product as long as it isn’t due to defective manufacture. I don’t see why firearms manufacturers should be held to a different standard than the manufacturer of any other potentially deadly item (cars, power tools, swimming pools, household chemicals, baseball bats, etc). Fourteenth Amendment, anyone?

  • It’s about a lawsuit not about the elections, congress etc.

  • MIKE

    HOW MANY SANDY HOOK VICTIMS WERE SHOT WITH THE BUSHMASTER RIFLE THAT WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE TRUNK OF THE CAR….AFTER THE SHOOTINGS, BY LAW ENFORCEMENT?

  • Jeff Heeszel

    I would think the only way you can sue a manufacturer would be if there was a safety defect that caused harm. It will be very bad for any manufacturers (and jobs if you aren’t a lawyer) if they can be sued because of how an end-user abused it.

  • Uniform223
  • Mystick

    But… the gunman had no relationship with the arms manufacturer or the gun shop(I believe he was even denied purchases?)… He literally stole the firearm from his mother before/during/after the act of killing her. He was in unlawful possession at that point. If the defendants had actually sold him the arms…. then maybe, perhaps, on a blue moon there would possibly be some case here. But they didn’t, so…. there isn’t. It’s not Ford’s fault or “Crazy Bob’s Discount Auto and Bait Shop’s” fault when someone steals a car they sold at one point and runs someone down.

    Where the hell has common sense gone in the world?

  • Robert Bradley

    Correct me if wrong, I remember when this all was just being covered by the news! The Ar-15 was reported as still being in the trunk of the car! Anyone else remember this? It was reported that he used a pistol! So who put the gun in the trunk? Was it him or did mom leave it there? Obama is the one who was lying to everyone about an Ar-15 being used to try to pass his anti- gun legislation high capacity mag bull! The need to find the oregional news report where they reported the Ar-15 still being in the trunk of the car and the culprit dead inside school no where around the car!

  • Robert Martin

    EE…I know the court hasn’t ruled on the Merits yet but…Classic case of assuming-facts-not-in-evidence. If the Plaintiff alleges that AR-15 type carbines have no utility in a “Civilian” context—literally millions of AR owners disagree. I hate the use of “Civilian” in this context. Laws are just as much Civilians as non-laws and if the Public can’t be trusted with these weapons then I sure as Hell don’t want laws to be able to use them (or the military either—it’s just that soldiers are legitimately “non-civilian.”)
    …..RVM45

  • phil box

    alright now the scumbag attorneys will get some huge paydays off this decision. think about it, all the “wrongful” car deaths, fat people suing fast food companies, schools for not educating kids, electric companies for lose of frozen food during power outages to say nothing of the deaths when life support system go down. oh and politicians when the laws they make turn out to harm individuals. oh man the flood gates are opening and the potential payday are greater than playing the lotteries. everyone will be rich by the end of the year.

  • Stephan Williams

    After reading down through pages of comments I haven’t found a single comment that lays out the elephant in the room.

    Sandy Hook was a scripted rehearsal of a terrorist attack. There were porta potties, signs telling people where to sign in, yada yada yada…

    It was faked from beginning to end! And here all you guys are treating it like it really happened. That sure proves the power of the media to convince people that up is down and white is black.

    All the defendants have to do to win this case is prove that it was a false flag event staged by America’s psychotic political leadership as a means of introducing gun control. The fact is: A confused and drugged up kid didn’t kill anyone at Sandy Hook – a school that had been unused for at least a couple of years before this assault on the Constitution.

  • Mike Lashewitz

    Now the lawsuits against car manufacturers for every one used in a homicide. Every cigarette manufacturer whose cigarettes started house fires. Man this can go really stupid.

  • cnnspy

    we all know this is just a bunch of HOOPLA! to look good for the camera. After a while of arguing and making motions like this and like that, this will all blow over and a little money will be exchanged under the table. Of course, the details of the settlement will not be able to be disclosed!

  • Richard Lutz

    You have a right to sue anybody for anything. So if someone runs over children with their Mercedes the victims can rightly sue Mercedes which sells these deadly vehicles to the public (many of whom are deranged nutters) which cause countless deaths directly in accidents and murders and indirectly via pollution. These cars are also helping murder the planet by contributing to global warming as a result of producing huge amounts of CO2. Seems some people love their high speed assault vehicles (which I define as any vehicle that can travel faster than 20 MPH) more than they love children. How many people living in a town or city need anything more than a speed limited electric golf cart type vehicle fitted with huge foam bumpers, a bicycle, or public transport like a bus, tram or train?

  • Bill The Cat

    1 fact of contention should be that the perp did not buy the weapons he used, he stole them.

  • Mystick

    Indeed… but the whole point of the zombie horde is attrition through numbers…