Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Gun Maker Can Move Forward

1CK1S
1CK1S Members Posts: 27,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited April 2016 in The Social Lounge
The families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims have won a small legal victory after a judge ruled their lawsuit against a gun maker could continue.

The suit argues that the semi-automatic rifle used in the school shooting is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.

In December 2012, Adam Lanza killed 26 people with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S.
Remington Arms, the parent company of Bushmaster Firearms, sought to have the lawsuit dismissed.

The company argued that federal law protects gun manufactures from most lawsuits over the criminal use of their products.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, said an exception to the law applies to the case. Litigation is permitted if the company know or should know their products are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others, he said.

However, Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis did not rule on that point, saying the debate on the federal shield law should be argued later in the legal process.

"We are thrilled that the gun companies' motion to dismiss was denied," Mr Koskoff told the Associated Press. "The families look forward to continuing their fight in court."

Comments

  • Melanin_Enriched
    Melanin_Enriched Members Posts: 22,868 ✭✭✭✭✭
    What in the ? ?
  • babelipsss
    babelipsss Members Posts: 2,517 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't see a victory happening. It's not like he bought it from the factory.
  • CashmoneyDux
    CashmoneyDux Members Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1CK1S wrote: »

    Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, said an exception to the law applies to the case. Litigation is permitted if the company know or should know their products are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others, he said.

    ??? This is literally the whole point of a gun
  • The_Jackal
    The_Jackal Members Posts: 3,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is a small step towards tyranny against any small business owner (since logically speaking it will only effect small businesses while big business will have their lawyers run a train on the judge for such an asinine train of thought)
    By know means is this a victory for the families since it still will likely be thrown out but at the same time it is a very divisive lawsuit.
    Oh and @janklow to this ? .
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Guess we know why "sandy hook happened". Little tots and semi-auto ? deep heart strings.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    the lawsuit in question remains ? . as stated before: "it's designed to attack a firearms manufacturer because Adam Lanza killed his mother and took her firearm and committed a crime with it, which is ? logic. and it makes the argument that civilians shouldn't be able to purchase an AR-15 in this country because of REASONS."

    "the semi-automatic rifle used in the school shooting is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians?" the semi-automatic rifle in question isn't an issued military weapon. and the military uses weapons - handguns, shotguns, bolt-action rifles - that supposedly aren't being accused of being "military weapons," and yet the argument is the same.

    this is the point of the PLCAA: people want to file disingenuous, shameless lawsuits to financially attack gun manufacturers because they have hurt feelings about their existence. this shouldn't be about firearm laws: this lawsuit is a thinly-veiled, abusively political maneuver and people supporting it should be ashamed of themselves.
  • playmaker88
    playmaker88 Members Posts: 67,905 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thats pretty ridiculous.. white people always tryin to litigate some ? word to hot coffee
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    word to hot coffee
    likely that was a much more legitimate lawsuit