• Court Appeal clears path for possible Sandy Hook survivors to sue Remington Arms for school shooting
    76 replies, posted
[quote]The lawsuit, brought by the families of nine people who were killed and one teacher who was shot and survived, faces significant legal hurdles. It was elevated to the Connecticut Supreme Court after a lower court judge dismissed the lawsuit last year after she found that the claims it raised fell “squarely within the broad immunity” provided by federal law. Mass shootings across the country have been followed by a flurry of legal action, but lawsuits brought against gun companies have failed after running headfirst into the high bar established by federal law. In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which sharply restricted lawsuits against gun sellers and makers by granting industrywide immunity from blame when one of their products is used in a crime. Lawmakers behind the measure cited a need to foil what they described as predatory and politically driven litigation. But the law does allow exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of so-called negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it. The lawsuit [B]argues that because the AR-15 was designed for the United States military as a battlefield weapon to maximize fatalities, gun companies should never have entrusted the rifle to an untrained civilian public.[/B] The suit also claims that the companies deliberately promoted the weapon with product placement in video games and macho militaristic marketing slogans that appealed to a population of mentally unstable young men — the same population that has used the gun to kill innocent people in theaters, malls, schools and churches. The families’ lawyers argue that the drumbeat of violence has only solidified their position. “That’s what happens when you market to a high-risk population,” said Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families. The case has already advanced beyond what many had initially expected. The lawsuit was originally filed in state court in 2014, then it was moved to federal court, where a judge ordered that the case be returned to the state level. The families saw a glimmer of hope, and were even surprised, after the State Superior Court judge, Barbara N. Bellis, allowed the case to move closer to trial before dismissing it. [B]Lawyers for the families argue that, in a strictly legal sense, the outcome of the case would set little precedent outside of Connecticut. [/B]But a successful appeal could have symbolic influence, pointing out a weakness in the law that could represent a serious threat to gun companies, and as a result it has prompted a flood of legal fillings. “All the key players are getting in there,” Professor Feldman said. The state attorney general, gun violence prevention groups and a statewide association of school superintendents were among those writing in support of the families’ case, as well as a group of trauma surgeons and emergency room doctors who had treated patients after shootings in Newtown; San Bernardino, Calif.; and Aurora, Colo.[/quote] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/nyregion/appeal-offers-hope-for-newtown-families-in-suit-against-gun-companies.html[/url]
They seem to miss that the point of the Second Amendment was to provide to citizens the same weapons the military uses. So that said citizens could overthrow their government if absolutely needed. As the they had during the Revolutionary War. Because the spark of that war was when the British military came to seize the weapons of the colonists at [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord]Lexington and Concord[/url]. So our Constitution says weapons designed for the military are to be entrusted to the citizens. Thus the negligent entrustment suit is doomed to failure. But it will achieve what they hope by wasting a ton of money in lawyers and court fees. Edit: Just to throw this out there. The AR-15 was specifically designed to be a civilian rifle. So there is that also. The military does not use the AR-15. They use the M-16 and M-4.
morons think guns are sentient and capable of acting on their own more at 11
[QUOTE=Kigen;52888271]They seem to miss that the point of the Second Amendment was to provide to citizens the same weapons the military uses. So that said citizens could overthrow their government if absolutely needed. As the they had during the Revolutionary War. Because the spark of that war was when the British military came to seize the weapons of the colonists at [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord]Lexington and Concord[/url]. So our Constitution says weapons designed for the military are to be entrusted to the citizens. Thus the negligent entrustment suit is doomed to failure. But it will achieve what they hope by wasting a ton of money in lawyers and court fees.[/QUOTE] By that logic, people are entitled to own nukes. The second amendment is all very well and good but people seem to ignore that laws that were written a long time ago can lose their appropriateness as times change. This is especially the case when it involves any form of technology, as that law - unless amended and updated - will become outdated at technology progresses. In my opinion, the second amendment needs to be heavily revised.
[QUOTE=David29;52888291]By that logic, people are entitled to own nukes. The second amendment is all very well and good but people seem to ignore that laws that were written a long time ago can lose their appropriateness as times change. This is especially the case when it involves any form of technology, as that law - unless amended and updated - will become outdated at technology progresses. In my opinion, the second amendment needs to be heavily revised.[/QUOTE] Why do you think the Founders did not understand the idea of technological advancement?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52888296]Why do you think the Founders did not understand the idea of technological advancement?[/QUOTE] I don't think that. But it is impossible to predict how technology is going to change and evolve. The second amendment was written at s time when slow loading muskets were the norm - not magazine fed automatic rifles. Do you think, hypothetically, rules and regulations on horse and carts that might have existed when they were in widespread use should apply to modern day cars?
[QUOTE=David29;52888291]By that logic, people are entitled to own nukes. The second amendment is all very well and good but people seem to ignore that laws that were written a long time ago can lose their appropriateness as times change. This is especially the case when it involves any form of technology, as that law - unless amended and updated - will become outdated at technology progresses. In my opinion, the second amendment needs to be heavily revised.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, we don't need people like Trump rewriting parts of the constitution. It will come in time, but as of this moment I wouldn't trust them to even understand the constitution.
[QUOTE=David29;52888291]By that logic, people are entitled to own nukes. The second amendment is all very well and good but people seem to ignore that laws that were written a long time ago can lose their appropriateness as times change. This is especially the case when it involves any form of technology, as that law - unless amended and updated - will become outdated at technology progresses. In my opinion, the second amendment needs to be heavily revised.[/QUOTE] And if you could use them safely without hurting anyone directly or indirectly you should be able to have them.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;52888312]And if you could use them safely without hurting anyone directly or indirectly you should be able to have them.[/QUOTE] Please tell me you are joking.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52888296]Why do you think the Founders did not understand the idea of technological advancement?[/QUOTE] I don't think he said that. Your response sounds like a strawman. Of course the framers understood the advancement of technology, [B]but[/B] they also knew the limits of their own foresight. At the time the 2nd amendment was drafted, it was a reasonable solution for the foreseeable future. What David29 appears to be suggesting, and I would agree, is that the founders included mechanisms within the constitution to adjust, reinterpret, and update the laws as needs arise, and that they, upon examining the current dilemma we're facing as a nation, would agree that the need has in fact arisen.
[QUOTE=David29;52888291]By that logic, people are entitled to own nukes. The second amendment is all very well and good but people seem to ignore that laws that were written a long time ago can lose their appropriateness as times change. This is especially the case when it involves any form of technology, as that law - unless amended and updated - will become outdated at technology progresses. In my opinion, the second amendment needs to be heavily revised.[/QUOTE] My opinion is that nukes, biological, and chemical weapons shouldn't exist at all in anybody's hands. But governments will never give them up. Regardless, such "weapons of mass destruction" aren't very useful in fighting tyranny. One does not nuke one's own home. So its really just an absurd argument designed to make my belief that the Second Amendment protects my right to own what the average infantrymen would carry look absurd. The reasons for every citizen to have the right to own and carry weapons the military does has not changed. Its so that we could fight such a future tyrannical enemy (foreign or domestic). Oddly enough a lawsuit over the NFA shows that the Supreme Court held my opinion back in 1939. [url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html]United States v. Miller[/url] [quote]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[/quote]
[QUOTE=David29;52888319]Please tell me you are joking.[/QUOTE] I'm not. Government's should exist to enable it's people to live their life freely, they should enable you to do what you love as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
[QUOTE=Kigen;52888271]They seem to miss that the point of the Second Amendment was to provide to citizens the same weapons the military uses. So that said citizens could overthrow their government if absolutely needed[/QUOTE] Isn't it more about defending from the British or the Spanish or any other threats in case they attack and military cannot be mobilized cause USA is big and horses are slow
[QUOTE=David29;52888309]I don't think that. But it is impossible to predict how technology is going to change and evolve. The second amendment was written at s time when slow loading muskets were the norm - not magazine fed automatic rifles. Do you think, hypothetically, rules and regulations on horse and carts that might have existed when they were in widespread use should apply to modern day cars?[/QUOTE] The Second Amendment was written with the intention of allowing the people to be armed to prevent government tyranny. How does the change in technology have anything to do with it? If anything, the idea would be that the people should be able to keep up with the government in technology.
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;52888332]Isn't it more about defending from the British or the Spanish or any other threats in case they attack and military cannot be mobilized cause USA is big and horses are slow[/QUOTE] No, since at the time of the Revolutionary War. Those people who fought largely still considered themselves British subjects. It wasn't until a year after Lexington and Concord that the Declaration of Independence was signed and they finally decided to form a new nation. Before that they still hoped that they could get the protections they wanted from the British government and remain British subjects.
[QUOTE=David29;52888309]I don't think that. But it is impossible to predict how technology is going to change and evolve. The second amendment was written at s time when slow loading muskets were the norm - not magazine fed automatic rifles. Do you think, hypothetically, rules and regulations on horse and carts that might have existed when they were in widespread use should apply to modern day cars?[/QUOTE] I guess free speech shouldn't apply to the internet since all they had back then was a printing press
[QUOTE=Kigen;52888271]They seem to miss that the point of the Second Amendment was to provide to citizens the same weapons the military uses. So that said citizens could overthrow their government if absolutely needed. As the they had during the Revolutionary War. Because the spark of that war was when the British military came to seize the weapons of the colonists at [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord]Lexington and Concord[/url]. So our Constitution says weapons designed for the military are to be entrusted to the citizens. Thus the negligent entrustment suit is doomed to failure. But it will achieve what they hope by wasting a ton of money in lawyers and court fees.[/QUOTE] a little off topic I suppose but still responding directly to this, the american second amendment holds about as much power as the queen in britain. it used to be true in a time when warfare was how it was, that you could justify entrusting the same weapons the military uses to civilians and say that the government now fears its' citizens for good reason - but when precision drone strikes can hit your earlobe while you're in a crowd, and armored vehicles cost more than the net worth of everyone you probably ever knew, the second amendment's ideas and ideals go flying out the window immediately. it's a formality.
[QUOTE=Egevened;52888354]a little off topic I suppose but still responding directly to this, the american second amendment holds about as much power as the queen in britain. it used to be true in a time when warfare was how it was, that you could justify entrusting the same weapons the military uses to civilians and say that the government now fears its' citizens for good reason - but when precision drone strikes can hit your earlobe while you're in a crowd, and armored vehicles cost more than the net worth of everyone you probably ever knew, the second amendment's ideas and ideals go flying out the window immediately. it's a formality.[/QUOTE] If only there was some way of hiding among citizens in a way that would make you look like any other normal person instead of looking like a rebel 24/7.
[QUOTE=Egevened;52888354]a little off topic I suppose but still responding directly to this, the american second amendment holds about as much power as the queen in britain. it used to be true in a time when warfare was how it was, that you could justify entrusting the same weapons the military uses to civilians and say that the government now fears its' citizens for good reason - but when precision drone strikes can hit your earlobe while you're in a crowd, and armored vehicles cost more than the net worth of everyone you probably ever knew, the second amendment's ideas and ideals go flying out the window immediately. it's a formality.[/QUOTE] Again, this is an absurd argument meant to make my argument look absurd. Air power can help land battles. It does not win wars on its own however. An AR-15 costs about $1,000. A set a body armor costs about $600. A good pistol about $600. What exactly about this sets it too high a bar for the average citizen to buy and use in the event of war? None really. Much is made of air power, drones, tanks, etc. But at the end of the day they do not win wars. They are only helpful tools to protect that which actually does win wars... The infantrymen. At the end of the day it still takes an infantryman going door to door to fight those battles. We've seen this in recent history with Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Tanks, fighter jets, etc are only really useful in fighting another regular army in open battle. All those tools loose almost all value when committed to fighting inside cities. Drones and fighter jets have only been moderately helpful in the fight against ISIS. What is actually winning the war against ISIS is the local, on the ground, infantrymen fighting and dying over a few blocks at a time. It took the Philippines' military with US help more than 6 months to liberate a city from about 1,000 ISIS fighters. This is with bombing and armored vehicles. From 2014 to still now ISIS has fought with shitty weapons, and armor. Against all the bombing the US and allies have done against them the only way the tide changed against ISIS is when militias and militaries of Iraq and Syria got their act together and sent actual infantrymen in to clear them building by building. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-insurgency]Counter-insurgency[/url] is very costly to governments. Because an overwhelming majority of their armor and planes prove useless when fighting insurgents. They only win via hearts and minds of the local populace. Its more of a police action than a military one.
Hey what model vehicle did that guy use to run people over in New York? Let's sue them
[QUOTE=David29;52888309]I don't think that. But it is impossible to predict how technology is going to change and evolve. The second amendment was written at s time when slow loading muskets were the norm - not magazine fed automatic rifles. Do you think, hypothetically, rules and regulations on horse and carts that might have existed when they were in widespread use should apply to modern day cars?[/QUOTE] Lexington and Concord weren't stockpiling small arms. They were stockpiling literal cannons. They were building a supply cache of artillery pieces to fight the Brits. In modern times we have compromised. We have restricted civilians to generally owning semi auto small arms. Given that the amendment full well understood that civilians could use it to stockpile artillery, I imagine we are well within the confines of what the framers would have found acceptable.
[QUOTE=David29;52888309]I don't think that. But it is impossible to predict how technology is going to change and evolve. The second amendment was written at s time when slow loading muskets were the norm - not magazine fed automatic rifles. Do you think, hypothetically, rules and regulations on horse and carts that might have existed when they were in widespread use should apply to modern day cars?[/QUOTE] The founding fathers couldn't have predicted computers, does that mean that if you're posting something online that's critical of the government you're not protected by the first amendment?
[QUOTE=GunFox;52888509]Lexington and Concord weren't stockpiling small arms. They were stockpiling literal cannons. They were building a supply cache of artillery pieces to fight the Brits. In modern times we have compromised. We have restricted civilians to generally owning semi auto small arms. Given that the amendment full well understood that civilians could use to to stockpile artillery, I imagine we are well within the confines of what the framers would have found acceptable.[/QUOTE] I would argue the threat of a British invasion has diminished somewhat. But I don't necessarily agree with the complete ban of weapons, and it is good that there are some restrictions. I just disagree with the attitude that an outdated law is being used to religiously justify the free access to any and all armaments.
[QUOTE=David29;52888606]I would argue the threat of a British invasion has diminished somewhat. But I don't necessarily agree with the complete ban of weapons, and it is good that there are some restrictions. I just disagree with the attitude that an outdated law is being used to religiously justify the free access to any and all armaments.[/QUOTE] Age does not make it outdated.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52888641]Age does not make it outdated.[/QUOTE] I'm aware of that. But without any kind of revision of said law as time, context, and technology changes, I would say it is.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52888604]The founding fathers couldn't have predicted computers, does that mean that if you're posting something online that's critical of the government you're not protected by the first amendment?[/QUOTE] This is an interesting question especially in light of the current investigations into social media corporations and bot usage stemming from Russia. I don't think it's unforeseeable that we may see legislation regulating internet speech more closely in the future.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;52888321]I don't think he said that. Your response sounds like a strawman. Of course the framers understood the advancement of technology, [B]but[/B] they also knew the limits of their own foresight. At the time the 2nd amendment was drafted, it was a reasonable solution for the foreseeable future. What David29 appears to be suggesting, and I would agree, is that the founders included mechanisms within the constitution to adjust, reinterpret, and update the laws as needs arise, and that they, upon examining the current dilemma we're facing as a nation, would agree that the need has in fact arisen.[/QUOTE] It's also important to note that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when it was intended for us to rely on militias to defend the country, rather than a standing army, which we didn't really have until after WWII. Now that we have a standing army to defend the country, the need for militias as a form of national defense is all but entirely obsolete. [QUOTE=Svinnik;52888604]The founding fathers couldn't have predicted computers, does that mean that if you're posting something online that's critical of the government you're not protected by the first amendment?[/QUOTE] This is a ridiculous argument. They were at a stage where they couldn't even predict the telegraph, or even [I]trains[/I]. The first amendment protects the [I]act[/I] and isn't necessarily restricted by the means except wherein such act doesn't violate someone else's rights.
Is this trying to paint gamers as "mentally unstable young men"? Like if a gun company was actually purposely marketing their weapons to criminals, etc. I could see on what basis they could be sued but this seems like a very weak case here. If their position is that these rifles shouldn't be available to civilians at all then their issue is with the law itself, not the company.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;52888830]Is this trying to paint gamers as "mentally unstable young men"? Like if a gun company was actually purposely marketing their weapons to criminals, etc. I could see on what basis they could be sued but this seems like a very weak case here. If their position is that these rifles shouldn't be available to civilians at all then their issue is with the law itself, not the company.[/QUOTE] The implicit claim that the AR-15 is uniquely dangerous and therefore unsuited to public sale is complete nonsense to begin with. The lawsuit is basically emotional garbage based on wholly invented distinctions.
I think it is awful the court let this be approved. There is already clear precedent with the similar Columbine case that you can't try a gun manufacturer for the actions of others. Everyone in this case is just going to lose money, time, and feel even worse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.