Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[skookerasbil]

There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.

Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently? He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.

A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.

Not to that dope.........thinks they walk around by day and night on seek and destroy missions!! These types just will never be able to connect the dots.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guns are manufactured virtually SOLELY for the purpose of killing....

You are one sick fuck. No, the primary use of guns is to not kill. And not be killed.

Unless you're talking about hunting. You a vegetarian? Or you just have someone else slaughter your animals for you before someone else cuts them up or shreds them and serves them on a bun to you?

IOW, you agree with what he wrote -

The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.

No. The purpose is to prevent yourself and others from being killed.

 

[Rustic]

it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Valerie]

Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield.

"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts," he said.

At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.





Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

For an example of how this plays out, look at Adames v. Beretta. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.

Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.

Of course.

Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.

gun makers love to make money... and the public deserves to have legal protections.

and lawyer haters always love a good lawyer as soon as they need one.

 

[Rustic]

 

[SuperDemocrat]

These lawsuits are being allowed because anti-gun people know they can at least slow down the gun manufacturing industry. They hope they can crush it. The only thing they succeed at is scaring small manufacturers out of business which only leaves the bigger ones who can afford the lawsuits.

 

[TNHarley]

We can legally obtain surface to air missiles, so your argument fails the logic test.

Well, you're "right"........Somewhere in the 2nd amendment the founding fathers put in something about surface to air missiles, tanks, and (I actually saw a manufacturer advertising these) FLAME THROWERS like those used during the Viet Nam debacle......Go for it right wingers..

 

[NightFox]

it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.

Since when is "public safety" the responsibility of corporations? isn't that what we're supposed to be paying government for ?

Government allowed said weapons to be sold legally, so why is that a company that sells a product legally should be held liable for how a consumer chooses to use it? shouldn't government be held liable since it's government that allowed said goods to be sold to the public in the first place?

 

[Rustic]

Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield.

"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts," he said.

At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.





Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

For an example of how this plays out, look at Adames v. Beretta. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.

Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.

Of course.

Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.

gun makers love to make money... and the public deserves to have legal protections.

and lawyer haters always love a good lawyer as soon as they need one.

 

[nat4900]

Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?

 

[Rustic]

 

[ChrisL]

Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.

So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible? Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?

Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.

Her guns were locked in a safe.

Her son got them so they weren't secure enough. That aside, the act was done, she is dead, he is dead, those children and teachers are dead. Won't wast breath saying the same stuff over and over. Especially since the thread was about Sandy Hook parents seeing gun makers, specifically Cerebus, Remington, Bushmaster.

Wrong....her kid was planning the attack for 2 years.....most of these killers plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, so even if his mother didn't have any guns in the home he would have gotten weapons...just like the 19 year old kid in Britain who ordered a Glock 19 over the Dark Web....in a country that is an island, confiscated guns and has extreme gun control laws.....any other gun would have killed as many people at Sandy Hook...it was a gun free zone...no one was armed to stop him.

Oh no, no, no. Don't you know that if guns are illegal, there will be no more murders. Lol.

 

[kwc57]

Can someone,anyone explain the basis for a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer other then the gun malfunctioned
or failed to perform as advertised?....

If the gun worked properly how can the manufacturer be held liable....for anything?....

You'll need to build and wear a liberal logic inducer to understand that. They are easily made from tin foil and worn on the head.

 

[Rustic]

Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield.

"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts," he said.

At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.





Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

For an example of how this plays out, look at Adames v. Beretta. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.

Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.

Of course.

Ambulance chasing-lawyers LOVE to make money.

gun makers love to make money... and the public deserves to have legal protections.

Indeed, a matter of crime control. Deal effectively with crime, criminals and the insane. That is the legal protection. Leave the real people alone.

and lawyer haters always love a good lawyer as soon as they need one.

I have nothing against lawyers, save those practicing only in order to undermine Constitutional rights.

 

[Valerie]

forks, knives, baseball bats, hand guns, hunting rifles, etc, all have other legal purposes.

there is no other legal purpose for assault weapons than massive deadly assault.

certain types of weapons should require higher regulation of who can own them and for what lawful purpose.

whoever applies for a legit lawful purpose should be required to achieve certain high standards of training, etc...

 

[ChrisL]

Yeah, so if you levy a heavy tax on guns or ammo, then criminals be like "oh noes." Lol.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh shut up you sanctimonious gun freaks . You are the same people who have no problem with the right wing going to great lengths to eliminate abortions by regulating it out of existence.

Look you sanctimonious, anti-gun fairy...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Given right wingers' "logic", is there ANY reason why someone could not sell an atomic bomb?
If when the 2nd amendment was written we were talking about a militia with muskets and THAT is now being interpreted as legally owning an AR-15 to whomever wants it......then why NOT a nuclear bomb?

Puerile. Grow up.