Posted on 10/14/2016 1:23:52 PM PDT by Daffynition
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut judge has dismissed a lawsuit by Newtown families against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, saying federal law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis on Friday granted a motion by Madison, North Carolina-based Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the 2012 attack. A gunman killed 20 children and six adults at the school with an AR-15-style rifle.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtnh.com ...
Remember, this is Connecticut.
I want to see the actual law suit documents.
COUNTER SUE! Offensive, not defensive!
This appears to be the suit against Bushmaster
http://www.koskoff.com/In-the-News/Sandy-Hook-Families-Complaint.pdf
This is because there is a Federal Law.
This could be appealed, and if successful the law could be struck down.
With compliant Supreme Court its not at all improbable that they could find that law unconstitutional.
That will short-circuit the Second Amendment very neatly, rendering it moot, as it would instantly drive every firearms maker and ammo maker out of business, out of even the risk of successful lawsuits.
Oh man! What is this going to mean to my suit against Toyota for deaths caused by drunk drivers?
They will certainly appeal...deep pockets. Can you foresee [if elected, illery will try to change the law]. For now, the only winners are the lawyers representing the parents.
The main problem faced by the plaintiffs is that this lawsuit is absolutely barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCA). The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush to stop these types of emotionally-charged lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Codified at 15 U.S.C. §7901-7903, the Congressional “Findings” specifically state that businesses that manufacture, market, distribute, import or sell firearms should not “be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse” such weapons. Such civil liability lawsuits “may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”
There should be no civil liability without actual responsibility ever, especially in instances of the commission of a crime (I.e. no civil liability without being convicted of the crime first).
There should be no civil liability without actual responsibility ever, especially in instances of the commission of a crime (I.e. no civil liability without being convicted of the crime first).
That is the part of the evils’ plan.
I’m waiting for our moronic senator, DickieB to be on the evening news, decrying this case. Bleech.
Lawyers trying to make money making case law. Inanimate objects are negligent and criminal. After the guns, come the tool manufacturers and auto manufacturers, anything used as a weapon, even a leg of a chair will go to the deep pocket manufacturer. Our Govt. needs more lawyers in congress, who pass stupid money making laws for their fellow contributors?
Oh, this is a STATE judge.
Soon to be overruled by a federal oligarch.
Given this, I wish the lawyers bringing the suit would be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Wishful thinking...
If products are defective and cause injury and death to the user then yeah, sue them. In this case unfortunately the product worked as advertised. It’s just like the relatives of those that were killed when that German pilot deliberately crashed the plane into a mountain and they got some lawyers to sue the flight school. Maybe even Boeing (but not sure). Ambulance chasing lawyers.
That seems to be the charge. It NEVER should have gone this far.
In an 18-page opinion, Judge Bellis engaged in what Justice Antonin Scalia would have called an embarrassing “bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery” in order to get out of doing what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act compels her to do — dismiss this lawsuit.
Bellis spends page after page arguing legal semantics over the motion to dismiss; whether it was the appropriate motion for raising a lack of subject matter jurisdiction; if it properly questioned “the legal sufficiency” of the plaintiffs’ claims; or whether the defendants should have filed a motion to strike as opposed to a motion to dismiss (no really).
This is the worst kind of legal gymnastics and pettifoggery intended to try to justify what Bellis does at the end of her opinions — refuse to grant the motion to dismiss (or strike or whatever). This despite the fact that federal law could not be more clear — such claims against gun manufacturers “may not be brought in any Federal or State court.” Period.
Bellis wrote an opinion clearly designed to get to the end that I am sure the local families — who are entitled to a great deal of sympathy — want, which is the ability to go after the deep pockets of gun makers who manufacture and sell a product owned by many Americans, and a product they have a constitutional right to own. By doing so, the judge is basically showing her contempt for the rule of law and for the U.S. Constitution, which makes it clear in Article VI that laws passed by Congress such as the PLCA are “the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State [including Judge Bellis] shall be bound thereby.”
Looks like FR hasn’t gotten rid of all the scummy Sandy Hook “truther” loons.
This is no small victory.
Absolutely. This is huge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.