Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge dismisses Newtown families’ lawsuit against gun maker
WTNH.com ^ | October 14, 2016 | AP via WTNH

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: banglist; connecticut; lawsuit; newton; plca; ruling; sandyhook; schoolshooting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last
This is no small victory.

Remember, this is Connecticut.

1 posted on 10/14/2016 1:23:52 PM PDT by Daffynition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

I want to see the actual law suit documents.


2 posted on 10/14/2016 1:29:19 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Daffynition
Good!
It was not any defect in the weapon that caused the carnage, the malfunction was in the head of the operator.

4 posted on 10/14/2016 1:31:03 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (I'd rather have Unequal Wealth than Equal Poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

COUNTER SUE! Offensive, not defensive!


5 posted on 10/14/2016 1:32:39 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

This appears to be the suit against Bushmaster

http://www.koskoff.com/In-the-News/Sandy-Hook-Families-Complaint.pdf


6 posted on 10/14/2016 1:35:28 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

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.


7 posted on 10/14/2016 1:40:09 PM PDT by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

Oh man! What is this going to mean to my suit against Toyota for deaths caused by drunk drivers?


8 posted on 10/14/2016 1:42:01 PM PDT by thorvaldr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar; Psalm 73

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.”


9 posted on 10/14/2016 1:44:21 PM PDT by Daffynition (*Donald Trump represents the WILL of the PEOPLE.*~ Don King 09.24.16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

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).


10 posted on 10/14/2016 1:46:54 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

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).


11 posted on 10/14/2016 1:46:55 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

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.


12 posted on 10/14/2016 1:47:30 PM PDT by Daffynition (*Donald Trump represents the WILL of the PEOPLE.*~ Don King 09.24.16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

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?


13 posted on 10/14/2016 1:47:48 PM PDT by Bringbackthedraft (sO DID 14 MILLION OTHERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

Oh, this is a STATE judge.

Soon to be overruled by a federal oligarch.


14 posted on 10/14/2016 1:48:21 PM PDT by fwdude (If we keep insisting on the lesser of two evils, that is exactly what they will give us from now on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

Given this, I wish the lawyers bringing the suit would be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Wishful thinking...


15 posted on 10/14/2016 1:49:25 PM PDT by SgtHooper (If you remember the 60's, YOU WEREN'T THERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

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.


16 posted on 10/14/2016 1:50:07 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Ambtion Without Talent Is Sad - Talent Without Ambition Is Worse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HollyB

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.”


17 posted on 10/14/2016 1:52:01 PM PDT by Daffynition (*Donald Trump represents the WILL of the PEOPLE.*~ Don King 09.24.16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt

Looks like FR hasn’t gotten rid of all the scummy Sandy Hook “truther” loons.


18 posted on 10/14/2016 1:54:13 PM PDT by Dagnabitt (Trump - Because countries without Islamic immigration are countries without Islamic terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition
Of course they'll refile it in Federal court and find a BillyBob or Obola appointee.Count on it!
19 posted on 10/14/2016 1:54:15 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Deplorables' Lives Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

This is no small victory.


Absolutely. This is huge.


20 posted on 10/14/2016 1:54:50 PM PDT by boycott (S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson