First and four most, life is precious, and when it is cut short prematurely due to violence, sickness, or other, the pain can be compounded greatly. If gun manufacturers can be sued for selling a firearm deemed acceptable by the powers that be, E.g. the ATF, and then the victims are allowed to sue the manufacture for it's misuse, there is a problem. It's like suing Craftsman for making a hammer that was used for something other than its intended use, or a firearm that was intended for family bonding at the local range, hunting to provide food, or to defend ones self, loved ones, or property. Personally, I believe it's time that we address the root cause in areas such as our broken mental health system, intercity poverty, as well as the modern day concept that there is no absolute truth, you just make it up as you go; basically ignoring fundamentals like truth, morality and honesty, and trading them in for the "whatever feels good" mentality
Gosh, get a grip folks
Quote from: Kenk on March 14 2019 09:28:14 PM MDT
...I believe it's time that we address the root cause in areas such as our broken mental health system, intercity poverty...
This.
I have posted before about the clear correlation between school consolidation and school shootings, one of the few areas where "gun crime" is actually rising. School consolidation is all about saving tax payer money. Cost seems pretty high to me.
Rarely popular on gun forums are ideas about social reforms related to de-criminalizing illicit drugs, guaranteed minimum income and guaranteed education K-16 instead of K-12. But, just as the data shows that gun control won't stop violent crime, the data shows these actions will, and most likely won't cost any more long term than our current prosecute and incarcerate costs us ($181 billion per year according to one 2017 study). Take 2/3's of that prison costs from drug offenders that are no longer in prison, and add in the taxes they would pay on their drug habit and you have a pretty good war chest to help out the bottom 5%.
I usually don't go there. but I am on vacation this week and feeling frisky!
I guess my question / concern is how the heck can the courts allow a gun manufacturer to be sued for selling a firearm deemed acceptable by the the ATF? It's not Bushmasters fault that one of their weapons was misused
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-rules-sandy-hook-families-sue-gunmaker-rifle/story?id=61682953
The court's are and have been politicized for a long time. In effect there is little law, just positions that come from ideology. A reason can always be found for any judicial decision as well as for the opposite decision. As a lawyer, this was a large part of my reason to discontinue litigation years ago. In most cases a judge can rule any way he or she wants and find support in prior case law. For an impartial judge, and they do exist, it then comes down to which side puts on the best show and whether or not the case involves any of the judge's ideological beliefs and, if it does and you knew of them, the result is highly predictable without even knowing a thing about the case itself.
To all of you I say: avoid the judicial system, criminal or civil, at just about any cost. A bad settlement trumps bringing even a good case to trial.
Thanks Sneed!
That's a misguided "state" court that has no relevance on the rest of the country. If it was a federal appellate court it would have a far reaching effect on the states within that court's district. But, such a decision would be reversed upon appeal to the Supreme Court. Isn't there already a federal law that protects firearm manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits like that state case?
Absolutely, especially if they can use it to further their misguided cause
gun contro0l laws have nothing to do with stopping crime or violence. and everything to do with controlling people.
For sure, enforcing the laws on the books would elevate many of these issues
Here's a pretty good writeup in TFB about the Remington lawsuit.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/03/22/remington-lawsuit-the-sky-is-not-falling/
He summarizes the case specifics well. My understanding is that the lawsuit that is being allowed to proceed is focused on Remington's advertising of the rifle in question rather than the particular rifle's characteristics, and it doesn't call the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act into question. Note also that the decision was only to allow that one legal argument to move forward and be heard, not siding with either side in the lawsuit at this point. The plaintiffs still need to make a compelling case to the court on that argument.
It'll be interesting to see where it goes.