General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJudge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Remington For Sandy Hook Massacre
For potential jurists/hosts:
News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.
The judge also rejected the plaintiffs attempt to slip their claims in under Connecticuts consumer protection law, saying that law is limited to lawsuits where the plaintiff had some business relationship with the defendant.
And she rejected their product-liability claims, because the gun most definitely worked as intended.
The dismissal puts an end to an innovative attempt to get around the PLCAA, which Congress passed to thwart lawsuits against gun manufacturers over the crimes committed with their products. Judge Bellis allowed the case to proceed longer than might have been expected, given the clear conflict with the PLCAA, and even mused that there might be a comparison to cigarette litigation at a June hearing on Remingtons motion to dismiss.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/10/14/connecticut-judge-dismisses-sandy-hook-massacre-lawsuit-against-remington/2/#a7079a18dce1
Here is the 54-page ruling from Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis for those who prefer primary sources:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=11214676
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Chevy should not be sued for the misuse of their legal product either.
Kingofalldems
(38,475 posts)Chevys are made to drive.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Is to safely fire a projectile for the user. It is the user that is responsible where that projectile ends up. Firearms are legal and can only be sold be federally licensed dealers. There are many warnings in all users manuals put in by the firearms manufacturers. Chevy is not liable if a person decided to misuse that vehicle and use it to mow down a crowd of people on the sidewalk.
Kingofalldems
(38,475 posts)The NRA agrees with you by the way.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It is almost as if people have found other uses for their guns besides killing.
Perhaps if we focus on the user instead of the object we can come to agreement on how to further reduce gun deaths.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The actions of the user are what matters.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)At least my self defense one are...
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Did the judge not define firearms as objects designed to kill here? I see that argued frequently, if the purpose of a firearm is to kill or not.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)The target of those bullets is the choice of the shooter.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The judge said that the weapon clearly worked as intended, therefore it worked to kill.
The judge was not talking about your arbitrary situation, the topic was school children being murdered.
I'm not arguing if the decision is good or bad, I'm saying that the judge potentially opened a door on that argument.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The firearm functioned as it was designed, to fire a projectile out the barrel without injuring the operator. The person aiming that weapon is solely responsible for who he aims it at, sadly in this case children and teachers.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I have read enough over the years to know that you will reliably defend firearms. That's a given.
The point I raise is that the judge, in this case, where we both agree that the target was school children, said that the weapon worked as intended.
I know that you will bend that in your mind in whatever way possible to defend firearms. Our opinions don't matter towards legal precedent. The judge's does.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Should Renault be sued for making a truck that "worked as intended" by the user?
Your argument is full of holes.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)The issue was whether or not the product functioned as intended and designed. Again, the target was the choice of the shooter and not the manufacturer.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I haven't read enough of your posts to know what your mind set. Ducky will defend firearms to his or her last breath.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But thanks for putting words in my mouth
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)If you want to read was discussed on the matter see:
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=11214676
Read the section on the Exclusivity Provision of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA) on pages 49 - 52. This section shows that the issue is not whether guns; intended used is to kill. It ends:
[IMG][/IMG]
FWIW: I generally agree with Duckhunter's posts.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If your claim was true, you would be quite hypocritical.
Interesting that you believe defending firearms has a negative connotation...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Many people have said that
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)...before the judge instead of being dismissed immediately.
This judge was especially considerate of the plaintiffs arguments and still the outcome was the expected outcome.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)You're dropping the veil. You're supposed to say that they are about making guns safer.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)get killed, wounded intimidated by those who train to shoot folks. The suit should punish the greedy bastards that profit from guns, just like any other suit like this.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NRA nonsense.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)Guns are designed to kill in justifiable circumstances such as self defense. Killing a bunch of school kids fails to qualify as a justifiable shooting, and therefore the gun was misused. Manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for product misuse.