Court Appeal clears path for possible Sandy Hook survivors to sue Remington Arms for school shooting
76 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tudd;52888931]Everyone in this case is just going to lose money and lose.[/QUOTE]
For the likes of the Brady Campaign and their other ilk it's a win-win situation.
In the unlikely event they win the case they've scored a huge legal victory. If they get steamrolled in court and Remington asks the court to make them pay the legal feeds they go bankrupt which can be spun in the media as "the evil gun lobby sends mourning parents of victims of gun violence bankrupt".
[QUOTE=Tudd;52888931]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.[/QUOTE]
You know their intention isn't really to win the case. Its just to "win" that the case goes before a jury. Before the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act]PLCAA[/url] they made a habit out of suing the arms industry in an attempt to bankrupt them with spurious lawsuits. Its kinda like [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation]SLAPP[/url], its not that they have any leg to stand on. Its just a lawsuit to waste money and make it impossible for the arms industry to continue to exist.
A similar thing happened to Blitz. Where they were literally sued out of existence even though they won almost every court case.
[url]https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2012/07/09/why-the-largest-maker-of-portable-gas-cans-is-going-out-of-business/[/url]
[quote]Even winning is expensive. Blitz beat one lawsuit in Texas, Marketplace reports, but the fight still cost the company about $2.5 million.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Kigen;52888960]You know their intention isn't really to win the case. Its just to "win" that the case goes before a jury. Before the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act]PLCAA[/url] they made a habit out of suing the arms industry in an attempt to bankrupt them with spurious lawsuits. Its kinda like [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation]SLAPP[/url], its not that they have any leg to stand on. Its just a lawsuit to waste money and make it impossible for the arms industry to continue to exist.
A similar thing happened to Blitz. Where they were literally sued out of existence even though they won almost every court case.
[url]https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2012/07/09/why-the-largest-maker-of-portable-gas-cans-is-going-out-of-business/[/url][/QUOTE]
Green groups do the same thing to the nuclear industry. Every week they can delay a reactor startup is another week they have to pay interest on a reactor that isn't producing a revenue stream.
[QUOTE=download;52888943]
In the unlikely event they win the case they've scored a huge legal victory. If they get steamrolled in court and Remington asks the court to make them pay the legal feeds they go bankrupt which can be spun in the media as "the evil gun lobby sends mourning parents of victims of gun violence bankrupt".[/QUOTE]
They actually did this with the Aurora movie theater shooting. They convinced the parents of one of the victims to sue the ammo seller, Lucky Gunner. Even though the case had no leg to stand on. Then left the parents with the bill for the lawyers.
[url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/my-daughter-was-murdered-in-a-mass-shooting-then-i-was-ordered-to-pay-her-killers-gun-dealer/[/url]
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450072/aurora-lawsuit-brady-campaign-should-pay-parents-legal-bills[/url]
[url]http://www.pagunblog.com/2017/07/20/did-the-brady-campaign-explain-the-risks-why-arent-they-paying-up/[/url]
[url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html[/url]
[quote]Working for the Brady Campaign became a flurry of media appearances and meetings with politicians, police, and survivors. The Brady leadership also encouraged Lonnie and me to sue Lucky Gunner, the dealer that sold the stockpile of ammo to Jessi’s killer. We agreed that dealers should have to take some responsibility. Shouldn’t they have to vet a buyer of military-grade weaponry? Or a buyer of bullets en masse? The primary goal of our lawsuit was to make the gun dealer change its business practices — at a minimum, to ask for proof of identity and do a background check. The case would go on for three months, yet we never met the judge and never saw a courtroom. [b]When the judge dismissed the suit, he said, “It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center.”[/b] In my opinion, the law that protects the gun dealers also bars people like us from our constitutional right to be heard.
[/quote]
[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]
The founding fathers were all for private citizens owning, manning, and operating warships, which were the closest thing to WMDs of the day, in a way.
Besides, do you really see them as people who would say "Whoa there buddy that's a little too much freedom!" In regards to staving off tyranny?
[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]
That's why we won the war in Afghanistan in 2001 a month after invasion?
Why ISIS never gained any ground whatsoever in Syria?
Why Hamas and Hezbollah are just footnotes in history of Israel?
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;52888931]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.[/QUOTE]
The absolute worse part of this is, the gunman in the Sandy Hook shooting wasn't even the one who purchased the weapon. It was his mothers, whom he slaughtered to get a hold of. Remington did not sell the weapon to the shooter at any level.
Farce case, it and the judge that approved it should be dismissed immediately and the plaintiffs fined for wasting court resources
It doesn't stand at all from any angle, the very first argument is an outright lie ("the AR-15 was designed for the military")
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52889055]The founding fathers were all for private citizens owning, manning, and operating warships, which were the closest thing to WMDs of the day, in a way.
Besides, do you really see them as people who would say "Whoa there buddy that's a little too much freedom!" In regards to staving off tyranny?[/QUOTE]
A ship is nowhere near comparable to WMDs as we know them today.
And I think the Founding Fathers might have a thing or two to say about the mass shootings that are occurring on a regular basis.
[QUOTE=David29;52889438]A ship is nowhere near comparable to WMDs as we know them today[/QUOTE]
Warships were legitimately the biggest, most expensive weapons platform of the day that allowed you to project your power literally anywhere in the world. While not 1:1 with a WMD, warships were the most dangerous weapons platform of their era, and to deny that is kinda silly lol. I don't have a horse in this race tbh, but I think it's important to remember that warships were the most powerful weapons of their time.
[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]
Because our military commonly uses and fights with nukes, which are a conventional weapon somehow in the same class as artillery or a standard infantry rifle.
Uh no, not really. His line of logic was that anything in common use with the armed forces should also be available to citizens as well.
[QUOTE=David29;52889438]
And I think the Founding Fathers might have a thing or two to say about the mass shootings that are occurring on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]
Would probably ask why the populace never shoots back and stops them immediately.
[QUOTE=bdd458;52889455]Warships were legitimately the biggest, most expensive weapons platform of the day that allowed you to project your power literally anywhere in the world. While not 1:1 with a WMD, warships were the most dangerous weapons platform of their era, and to deny that is kinda silly lol. I don't have a horse in this race tbh, but I think it's important to remember that warships were the most powerful weapons of their time.[/QUOTE]
"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere"
Also note that a ship is not a weapon; it is a vehicle that carries weapons.
[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.
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.[/QUOTE]
1) Lexington wasn't the spark, just the first big skirmish, there had been big riots and outright massacres across the colonies
2) it doesn't state what weapons, just that people can own arms to form militias
3) ya the suit is doomed, congress has explicitly said that remington or any firearms manufacturer cannot be held accountable
4) the ar-15 was developed from the ar-10 and both with intent for military use and the difference between an original ar-15 and an m-16 are superfluous. same really with the m-4
[QUOTE=David29;52889501]"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere"
Also note that a ship is not a weapon; it is a vehicle that carries weapons.[/QUOTE]
Warships were (and still are) considered [I]weapon platforms[/I] my dude. Much like a Humvee or Fighter-Jet today. They were designed with the intention of mounting weaponry of all sorts onto them.
Nuclear weapons allow Nuclear Armed nations to project their power all across the globe, with the threat of destruction. Warships were similar in that it allowed a nation to project their strength (via Ships of the Line) across the world by transporting armies, blockading nations, raiding commerce, and essentially hemming a country in. They're both the apex power projection of their era, which is what I assume evilweazel's point was referring to.
[QUOTE=bdd458;52889632]Warships were (and still are) considered [I]weapon platforms[/I] my dude. Much like a Humvee or Fighter-Jet today. They were designed with the intention of mounting weaponry of all sorts onto them.
Nuclear weapons allow Nuclear Armed nations to project their power all across the globe, with the threat of destruction. Warships were similar in that it allowed a nation to project their strength (via Ships of the Line) across the world by transporting armies, blockading nations, raiding commerce, and essentially hemming a country in. They're both the apex power projection of their era, which is what I assume evilweazel's point was referring to.[/QUOTE]
Yes, a weapons platform. Not a weapon. There is a difference. And either way, it only acts to reinforce the point because civilians with access to warships resulted in piracy.
[QUOTE=David29;52890215]Yes, a weapons platform. Not a weapon. There is a difference. And either way, it only acts to reinforce the point because civilians with access to warships resulted in piracy.[/QUOTE]
And yet the founding fathers still went along with the 2nd amendment. Weird huh?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52889492]Would probably ask why the populace never shoots back and stops them immediately.[/QUOTE]
the founding fathers were crazy motherfuckers in the best way. i bet they'd be upset that the military gets all the cool shit and civilians are stuck with semi-autos.
[editline]14th November 2017[/editline]
bring george washington to now and demo him a GAU-8, the first thing he is gonna ask is where he could buy one
[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]
I think Scalia drew the line at hand held weapons because the amendment said "keep and bear".
[QUOTE=toaster468;52890619]I think Scalia drew the line at hand held weapons because the amendment said "keep and bear".[/QUOTE]
No, Scalia only ruled on what was presented to the Supreme Court. Artillery (aka destructive devices) was not part of either of those court cases.
To "keep and bear" simply means to own and carry around with you, those arms. It makes no distinction on weight or what just one person can carry. As was posted earlier, cannons were included in the Second Amendment interpretations when it was created. Because I could put something that I couldn't carry on my own in the car and it'd still be to "keep and bear." It was basically impossible to physically carry most cannons of the day. They were wheeled things moved by horses or other beasts of burden.
Much of the Second Amendment has been sacrificed in the name of "compromise" and "public safety." I'm pretty sure the founders of this nation would be very upset by the current state of our laws reaching into everyone's daily life. But they had people trying to do that back then.
To me, laws are meant to say certain acts are illegal. Like murder or theft. However, the fact that mere possession of a firearm can land someone in prison would without a doubt upset them. Even with the advancement of technology of arms.
I fail to see how blaming a gun manufacturer for a school shooting is different from blaming Ford for the Paris truck attack.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52889492]Would probably ask why the populace never shoots back and stops them immediately.[/QUOTE]
More like they might actually consider the 2A with regards to modern times.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52889492]Would probably ask why the populace never shoots back and stops them immediately.[/QUOTE]
And the answer would be "good guy with a gun thing is a myth"
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52892221]And the answer would be "good guy with a gun thing is a myth"[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html[/url]
Gee I fucking wonder.
While I don't agree that suing gun companies after mass shootings is the best way to deal with mass shootings, gun companies should have to bear some of the costs related to the suffering their products cause.
We force car manufacturers to make safer and lower polluting cars, making them bear the social cost of their products. We do the same with a wide variety of other industries - one of the most important roles of the state in the economy is to regulate corporations and make them internalize some of the costs they place on society. Why should gun manufacturers be any different?
[QUOTE=daschnek;52892238]While I don't agree that suing gun companies after mass shootings is the best way to deal with mass shootings, gun companies should have to bear some of the costs related to the suffering their products cause.
We force car manufacturers to make safer and lower polluting cars, making them bear the social cost of their products. We do the same with a wide variety of other industries - one of the most important roles of the state in the economy is to regulate corporations and make them internalize some of the costs they place on society. Why should gun manufacturers be any different?[/QUOTE]
What was defective about the firearm? The cars had things we considered defects. Do the firearms in this case or any others have defects? Safeties have been added to firearms to prevent negligent discharge (drop safeties, etc). These lawsuits are done because they want to sue the arms industry out of existence. As a certain [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo]Andrew Cuomo[/url] [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c0rZNHtrZRYC&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q&f=false]once threatened[/url].
[editline]15th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52892221]And the answer would be "good guy with a gun thing is a myth"[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/[/url]
Its not a myth. They just have to be present and have the opportunity to intervene. Most of the time they are not present in the places where the overwhelming majority of newsworthy mass murders take place because its illegal to carry into those places. Schools are an obvious "gun free zone." Along with hospitals, churches, etc.
In Texas, it is illegal to carry a handgun "(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship." [url=http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.035]Texas Penal Code 46.035[/url] The reason recent mass shooter got shot is cause someone outside the church came to it. But by then it was a little late for a lot of people.
And also, as noted by others, how can one definitively say how many mass murder events were stopped before they happened? Because if they didn't happen they tend not to make the news.
Also, to note, during the founding era there were no police as we know them today. So, in the majority of America back in that time, the only way criminals got caught and were judged was by citizens capturing them and handing them over to the government. So, basically, in their era the ONLY way criminal acts got stopped was by citizens carrying firearms to defend their communities.
Shooting that have been stopped at low death tolls don't exactly make the news very often.
[QUOTE=Kigen;52892243]
[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/[/URL]
Its not a myth. They just have to be present and have the opportunity to intervene. Most of the time they are not present in the places where the overwhelming majority of newsworthy mass murders take place because its illegal to carry into those places. Schools are an obvious "gun free zone." Along with hospitals, churches, etc.
In Texas, it is illegal to carry a handgun "(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship." [URL="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.035"]Texas Penal Code 46.035[/URL] The reason recent mass shooter got shot is cause someone outside the church came to it. But by then it was a little late for a lot of people.
And also, as noted by others, how can one definitively say how many mass murder events were stopped before they happened? Because if they didn't happen they tend not to make the news.[/QUOTE]
Title of the article is "Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings"
Answer is yes.
"Is it worth the general increased gun crime rate?"
Answer is no.
Article doesn't talk statistics, but lists 10 cases during [B]10 years[/B] when this has happened. Which considering the number of mass shootings is a drop in the ocean.
let me give you actual papers, not borderline anecdotes.
[QUOTE]Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law.[/QUOTE]
[URL]https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/[/URL]
[QUOTE]Our major finding is that under all four specifications (DAW, BC, LM, and MM), RTC laws are associated with higher aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time. [/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510[/URL]
So yeah, while you can of course find examples where "Gun-wielding American super-patriot saves one thousand people from an untimely death", but for every one example of that, there's probably like 10-1000 shootings or gun crimes that would not have happened if gun ownership rates were lower.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;52892235][URL]http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html[/URL]
Gee I fucking wonder.[/QUOTE]
Mmmm I sure do love anecdotal evidence, gimme more.
[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.
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.[/QUOTE]
if the point of the second amendment is to provide citizens with the same weaponry as the military then they should be given M1A2 Abrams, Apaches, and Tomahawks.
[quote]Take Texas, which passed RTC laws in 1996. Donohue’s comparison for Texas came from combining data from California – a non-RTC state – and Nebraska and Wisconsin, which hadn’t pass RTC laws at that time. By weighting the violent crime data from these three states for the period from 1986 to 1996, he produced a synthetic crime rate similar to Texas’ crime rate in the 10 years prior to adopting RTC laws.
Donohue then projected the synthetic state’s crime rate for the next 10 years and compared it against Texas’ crime rate post-RTC passage. He performed the same analysis on the 33 states that enacted RTC laws over his data period and found a strikingly consistent picture.[/quote]
I'm no statistician, but that seems like a really bad way to do it.
It also seems to run counter to what is stated earlier in the article:
[quote]Donohue’s paper builds on the National Academies’ National Research Council’s 2004 report investigating guns and violence. While that report debunked claims that RTC laws had been shown to reduce crime, the 16 experts on the panel were not able to definitively conclude that carrying concealed weapons had an effect – positive or negative – on violent crime. Their uncertainty was rooted in the fragility of estimates that were derived from differing statistical models applied to panel data available at the time.[/quote]
This statement is also pretty disingenuous given a large a majority of firearms in the US are long arms and aren't suitable for day-to-day carry, and then most people don't carry to begin with.
[quote]Moreover, one can incur all of the costs of buying and carrying a gun, only to find that a criminal attack is too sudden to effectively employ the gun defensively. Donohue cites a 2013 report from the National Crime Victimization Survey that showed in 99.2 percent of the violent attacks in the United States, no gun is ever used defensively – despite the nearly 300 million guns in circulation in the country today.[/quote]
There are ~10m or so CCW permit holders in the US. How many carry every single day?
[editline]15th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Araknid;52892300]if the point of the second amendment is to provide citizens with the same weaponry as the military then they should be given M1A2 Abrams, Apaches, and Tomahawks.[/QUOTE]
Well you can own tanks and if you want to fit guns to a helicopter you can do that too.
You can even own tanks here in Australia.
[QUOTE=Araknid;52892300]if the point of the second amendment is to provide citizens with the same weaponry as the military then they should be given M1A2 Abrams, Apaches, and Tomahawks.[/QUOTE]
And its completely legal today to own Abrams or Apaches provided you could source one. Tomahawks would be considered destructive devices under the NFA unless the warhead is removed. Then all you have to do is register it as a drone I guess with the FAA.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.