Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
Thank goodness for a federal judge that goes by the rule of law and NOT emotion.

This lawsuit had the potential to set an absolutely horrible precedent.
I assume you are speaking of the suit brought against gun manufacturers. Yes this is a good thing.. it made no sense at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baren

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Thank goodness for a federal judge that goes by the rule of law and NOT emotion.

This lawsuit had the potential to set an absolutely horrible precedent.
The precedent has already been set. Fortunately, this goes to helping break it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,295 Posts
The law is that gun manufacturers can't be sued for the misuse of their product. This was passed to prevent companies like Remington from having to spend a dime defending themselves- to avoid death by a thousand cuts to the gun industry as was the antis' plan.

The precedent has been set that the law doesn't matter anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
694 Posts
The law is that gun manufacturers can't be sued for the misuse of their product. This was passed to prevent companies like Remington from having to spend a dime defending themselves- to avoid death by a thousand cuts to the gun industry as was the antis' plan.

The precedent has been set that the law doesn't matter anymore.
The law you're referring to is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Hillary Clinton voted against it and has vowed to repeal it if she becomes president.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,872 Posts
A little more detail here: Judge tosses Sandy Hook gun manufacturer lawsuit - NewsTimes

"In a 54-page decision filed Friday afternoon, Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion to strike the entire lawsuit...

"The judge ruled the lawsuit does not satisfy the exception to federal law that gives immunity to gun manufacturers for the actions of gun owners under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) or the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

"... the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,600 Posts
A little more detail here: Judge tosses Sandy Hook gun manufacturer lawsuit - NewsTimes

"In a 54-page decision filed Friday afternoon, Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion to strike the entire lawsuit...

"The judge ruled the lawsuit does not satisfy the exception to federal law that gives immunity to gun manufacturers for the actions of gun owners under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) or the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

"... the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law"
This is what I was wondering from square one. The plaintiff filed a suit in violation of federal law. They should pay all fees for Ruger. The attorneys or firm should receive written admonishment for filing a suit that they should have known violates federal law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
No different than suing General Motors for selling a car to the public that is capable of going 150 MPH. It is illegal to drive that fast anywhere in the nation. Thousands are killed by speeding vehicles every year.
So let's ban all vehicles that can exceed 80 MPH and see what the general public thinks of that!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,872 Posts
No different than suing General Motors for selling a car to the public that is capable of going 150 MPH. It is illegal to drive that fast anywhere in the nation. Thousands are killed by speeding vehicles every year.
So let's ban all vehicles that can exceed 80 MPH and see what the general public thinks of that!
Oh, wait - you mean hold people accountable for their actions??? What a charming idea. I hope our nation gets to try it some time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,459 Posts
No different than suing General Motors for selling a car to the public that is capable of going 150 MPH. It is illegal to drive that fast anywhere in the nation. Thousands are killed by speeding vehicles every year.
So let's ban all vehicles that can exceed 80 MPH and see what the general public thinks of that!
Thank goodness for a federal judge that goes by the rule of law and NOT emotion.

This lawsuit had the potential to set an absolutely horrible precedent.
Hilary swears she will change that flaw. Horrible is speaking lightly. If gun manufactures were able to be sued because if misuse then so may Ford, Chevy, Kitchen Aid Knives, .......you get the idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Truckinbutch

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
Another anti gunner political stunt................right before a general election.....what a coincidence.....:blink:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,872 Posts
Another anti gunner political stunt................right before a general election.....what a coincidence.....:blink:
Actually, I don't think so. The plaintiffs (misguided, to be charitable, IMO) filed their suit in January of 2015 and the case has been wending its way through the legal process. The judge just ruled last week on the defendant's motion for summary judgement.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
Actually, I don't think so. The plaintiffs (misguided, to be charitable, IMO) filed their suit in January of 2015 and the case has been wending its way through the legal process. The judge just ruled last week on the defendant's motion for summary judgement.
They know the timing. Trust me on that. Besides, Barry has appointed almost 400 Federal Judges in his 8 years.....so it is a toss up every time you file a suit. try try again....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
694 Posts
This morning I was listening to WTIC in Hartford (Connecticut's biggest AM station), and Ray Dunaway, the morning host, had some lawyer on talking about this decision. The lawyer was talking about the case going to the state Supreme Court and discussing some legal doctrine whose name escapes me about bearing responsibility because you should have known that it could have been used irresponsibly. The example he used was that someone who loaned his car to someone he knew was drunk could be held responsible for a subsequent car accident. And then he said Bushmaster could be held responsible since the AR-15 was "designed for mass killing".

At that point, I wasn't sure if the lawyer was an anti-gun lying sack or just an ignorant fool, but I couldn't believe that Dunaway, who is a well-informed Libertarian, let that nonsense go unchallenged.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,872 Posts
This morning I was listening to WTIC in Hartford (Connecticut's biggest AM station), and Ray Dunaway, the morning host, had some lawyer on talking about this decision. The lawyer was talking about the case going to the state Supreme Court and discussing some legal doctrine whose name escapes me about bearing responsibility because you should have known that it could have been used irresponsibly. The example he used was that someone who loaned his car to someone he knew was drunk could be held responsible for a subsequent car accident. And then he said Bushmaster could be held responsible since the AR-15 was "designed for mass killing".

At that point, I wasn't sure if the lawyer was an anti-gun lying sack or just an ignorant fool, but I couldn't believe that Dunaway, who is a well-informed Libertarian, let that nonsense go unchallenged.
Ray is a bright guy and a college classmate, but his views on firearms and the Second Amendment stray quite a distance from those held by most of us who are pro-RKBA.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,872 Posts
They know the timing. Trust me on that. Besides, Barry has appointed almost 400 Federal Judges in his 8 years.....so it is a toss up every time you file a suit. try try again....
I understand your position, but this case was tried in a Connecticut Superior Court and presided over by a judge appointed to the bench over a decade ago by a Republican governor.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top