Newtown families will fight gun manufacturers in Conn. court

[NAC4EV]

https://www.brit.co/the-family-of-t...ed-a-case-could-that-change-gun-laws-forever/

I wish them all the best and I hope they can promote some badly needed changes.

The families of Newtown victims will take their high-stakes case to Connecticut’s highest court Tuesday, arguing that gun manufacturers are liable when military-grade firearms end up in the hands of mentally ill mass shooters.

The case, brought by nine Sandy Hook Elementary families and one survivor against Remington Arms, alleges the company was negligent in the sale and marketing of the Bushmaster AR-15 assault-style rifle. The ads for the gun, they say, recklessly appealed to mentally unstable young people — like Adam Lanza — through video games and militaristic slogans.

 

[JSt0rm]

good.

 

[TheVrolok]

Can we get John Cusack on the jury?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It will fail

However I can't understand why a State hasn't made insurance policies mandatory for owning certain guns. I'm talking about a basic old school low risk gun needing a 500k liability coverage then scaling from there depending on what actuaries say.

 

[shortylickens]

thats nice but they're not military grade. I know cuz I served and military grade generally means overpriced crap thanks to budgets from congressmen to their lazy buddies.

At any rate, I dont think its realistic or reasonable or practical to sue someone for the way their product is used. I wouldnt sue Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Linus Torvalds for hacking or internet stealing or blackmail or online bullying even if it led to a suicide.

 

[sdifox]

They have no leg to stand on. Regulation is not up to the manufacturer, rather the legislators.

 

[shortylickens]

They have no leg to stand on. Regulation is not up to the manufacturer, rather the legislators.

Well thats nice and all but not what they are suing for. This case isnt about regulation. This case is about how they allegedly "marketed recklessly to the mentally ill". Now that is also horseshit, but its got potential to be a real case in civil court.
Dont forget the angry parents of impressionable children successfully argued that Joe Camel was a genuine threat. At the time it seemed ridiculous, but they won.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well thats nice and all but not what they are suing for. This case isnt about regulation. This case is about how they allegedly "marketed recklessly to the mentally ill". Now that is also horseshit, but its got potential to be a real case in civil court.
Dont forget the angry parents of impressionable children successfully argued that Joe Camel was a genuine threat. At the time it seemed ridiculous, but they won.

To my admittedly amateur understanding gun manufacturers are exempt from liability lawsuits per some bill passed in Congress

 

[allisolm]

Didn't the gun belong to Adam Lanza's mother?

 

[shortylickens]

To my admittedly amateur understanding gun manufacturers are exempt from liability lawsuits per some bill passed in Congress

AND ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED THE FUCKING POINT HERE! Good lord you guys have a horrible habit of veering off course.

The lawsuit is not about direct liability but rather their reckless marketing habits, which has been shown in the past to be legally actionable.

 

[sdifox]

Well thats nice and all but not what they are suing for. This case isnt about regulation. This case is about how they allegedly "marketed recklessly to the mentally ill". Now that is also horseshit, but its got potential to be a real case in civil court.
Dont forget the angry parents of impressionable children successfully argued that Joe Camel was a genuine threat. At the time it seemed ridiculous, but they won.

Ads have to be approved no?

 

[shortylickens]

Ads have to be approved no?

YES THEY DO! But keep in mind "approved" doesnt mean "safe" or exempt from lawsuits. Joe Camel was approved too. Until after about 10 years someone successfully argued in court that it was actually dangerous.
Now see thats actually a beginning to the argument at hand, thank you for staying on topic.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

AND ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED THE FUCKING POINT HERE! Good lord you guys have a horrible habit of veering off course.

The lawsuit is not about direct liability but rather their reckless marketing habits, which has been shown in the past to be legally actionable.

That's liability in my opinion however I certainly am not a legal expert like the majority of AT Members are.
I'll leave it at we'll see what happens maybe I'll be wrong

 

[sdifox]

YES THEY DO! But keep in mind "approved" doesnt mean "safe" or exempt from lawsuits. Joe Camel was approved too. Until after about 10 years someone successfully argued in court that it was actually dangerous.
Now see thats actually a beginning to the argument at hand, thank you for staying on topic.

Pleintiff has to prpve the case and well, it is going to be very hard to do so. The cigs are not in the Constitution.

 

[shortylickens]

Pleintiff has to prpve the case and well, it is going to be very hard to do so. The cigs are not in the Constitution.

No I am betting they lose, but if this case even makes it to court it could seriously change the legal landscape regarding guns. Its possible big changes may be pushed by congress even if all the civil lawsuits end up failing. Regardless of what Donald says, I suspect we're going to see a lot of action in Washington during the next year or two.

 

[sdifox]

No I am betting they lose, but if this case even makes it to court it could seriously change the legal landscape regarding guns. Its possible big changes may be pushed by congress even if all the civil lawsuits end up failing. Regardless of what Donald says, I suspect we're going to see a lot of action in Washington during the next year or two.

There isn't going to be enough court time for prosecuting Orangutan in Chief and his irk, let along take on gun lobby as well.

 

[shortylickens]

There isn't going to be enough court time for prosecuting Orangutan in Chief and his irk, let along take on gun lobby as well.

Umm, bro, seriously?
The legislative branch passes laws.
The JUDICIAL branch investigates and prosecutes.

 

[Puffnstuff]

It will fail

It will fail under the tort doctrine of strict liability as guns are a generally known danger. Legislators could craft a law banning their advertisement such as was done with big tobacco when they were forced to stop depicting people using the product.

 

[mdram]

heres hoping the not only lose, but are forced to pay the defendants court costs

frivolous lawsuit

 

[sdifox]

Umm, bro, seriously?
The legislative branch passes laws.
The JUDICIAL branch investigates and prosecutes.

You think legislators will have time for this while the OIC gets dragged to court?