2A GROUPS STUNNED AFTER COURT ALLOWS SANDY HOOK FAMILIES TO SUE GUN MAKERS

[jg121783 3,907]

40 minutes ago, Sonea said:

Are the Sandy Hook families going to be screwed over like the Aurora families given the case is so weak?

 

In the case of Aurora, they went after the ammunition vendor and lost. The vendor had 150,000 in legal fees which the plaintiff was ordered to pay. Plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy instead.

If they are going to be screwed over it will be by their attorneys for talking them into filing such a weak case.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

The idea of suing a gun manufacturer for the deaths is nothing short of ludicrous,  and the plaintiffs will lose, for sure.

 

Are we going to sue drug manufacturers for those who commit suicide with pills?  What about nitrogen?  Who do we sue for that?

 

Who do I sue when. I get a flat and am late to work?  Honda or Michelin?

[jg121783 3,907]

56 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

 

Who do I sue when. I get a flat and am late to work?  Honda or Michelin?

Or the manufacturer of the nail you ran over?

[TBoneTX 43,060]

99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.

[Unidentified 2,930]

14 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Because armchair quarterbacks said so. This current trend of calling judges "activists" is strange logic to me. I'm not sure what leads people to believe that any time a judge makes a legal decision they don't agree with, the judge must be the one who is wrong. As if the couch somehow imparts more knowledge than law school and years of experience behind the bench.

 

   Legally though, it seems this one small aspect of the case can go forward in court. Now to me, if that is the case, then it's better  to see it go forward and succeed or fail on it's own merits. It seems likely to fail, so I'm not sure what these groups are crying about. If the manufacturer didn't choose the marketing campaign they did, they wouldn't have been in this situation. 

I was talking more in general about the fact that Americans sue for every little thing and lawyers have way too much free time on their hands for silly cases. Thanks to someone out there I am not allowed to take my students out when it's raining because someone slipped and got a boo-boo. It's ridiculous. 

 

I feel sorry for the Sandy Hook victims but suing the gunmakers is not the solution. Stricter gun laws are what we need. Not everyone should be running around with guns. 

 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

35 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I was talking more in general about the fact that Americans sue for every little thing and lawyers have way too much free time on their hands for silly cases. Thanks to someone out there I am not allowed to take my students out when it's raining because someone slipped and got a boo-boo. It's ridiculous. 

 

I feel sorry for the Sandy Hook victims but suing the gunmakers is not the solution. Stricter gun laws are what we need. Not everyone should be running around with guns. 

 

I think we have plenty of strict gun laws. Unfortunately, most criminals and murderers don’t obey the law.

[NikLR 13,220]

17 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I think we have plenty of strict gun laws. Unfortunately, most criminals and murderers don’t obey the law.

Really? We have only bought one gun with a background check, our hunting rifle  The other 3, two ar-15 and one 1911, have been privately through friends. That doesn't seem strict at all. 

[NikLR 13,220]

On a side note, no you cant sue the gun makers.  Plently of people own guns and are responsible people with them. Just because we own 2 ar-15s doesnt mean we're going to modify them illegally or use them for anything but target shooting. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Unidentified said:

I was talking more in general about the fact that Americans sue for every little thing and lawyers have way too much free time on their hands for silly cases. Thanks to someone out there I am not allowed to take my students out when it's raining because someone slipped and got a boo-boo. It's ridiculous. 

 

I feel sorry for the Sandy Hook victims but suing the gunmakers is not the solution. Stricter gun laws are what we need. Not everyone should be running around with guns. 

 

Might be the fix in your opinion,  but consider for a moment that all the laws we currently have in place didn't prevent the shooting.  It's already against the law to commit murder.  It's not legal to use a firearm against another human unless it is in self defense.   It's illegal to physically assault another, to threaten them.  And yet... people who choose to do these things care not one whit for the law.   It's almost like they don't care.  It's almost like there is something missing from their basic humanity when they decide to end another's life.

 

The gun laws we currently have in place SHOULD have prevented all killings in the US.  Just as all drunk driving laws SHOULD prevent alcohol-related deaths.  More laws won't fix either, unless you are wanting to bring back the death penalty in all states for taking another's life.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

19 minutes ago, NikLR said:

Really? We have only bought one gun with a background check, our hunting rifle  The other 3, two ar-15 and one 1911, have been privately through friends. That doesn't seem strict at all. 

And how many people have you killed with those guns?  Is owning a gun all it takes to become a murderer?

 

Why did you not purchase thru a dealer (an option in all states, and required in some).  You and your friend have an obligation to at least do a background check in order to purchase privately.  Did you break the law by just passing the gun between the two of you without fulfilling this requirement?

[NikLR 13,220]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

And how many people have you killed with those guns?  Is owning a gun all it takes to become a murderer?

 

Why did you not purchase thru a dealer (an option in all states, and required in some).  You and your friend have an obligation to at least do a background check in order to purchase privately.  Did you break the law by just passing the gun between the two of you without fulfilling this requirement?

Nope not a requirement in Colorado.  Plus my husband easily passed the inital background check when buying the rifle. 

 

Did you not read my second post that acccompanied the one you quoted?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, NikLR said:

Nope not a requirement in Colorado.  Plus my husband easily passed the inital background check when buying the rifle. 

 

Did you not read my second post that acccompanied the one you quoted?

Yes I did.  Just wanted to point out that you (more likely your husband) chose to break the law in buying some of your guns, so what would even more laws do for us as a nation?  Criminals usually don't care about laws, by definition.

 

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-colorado/

 

 

[Dashinka 23,251]

16 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Because armchair quarterbacks said so. This current trend of calling judges "activists" is strange logic to me. I'm not sure what leads people to believe that any time a judge makes a legal decision they don't agree with, the judge must be the one who is wrong. As if the couch somehow imparts more knowledge than law school and years of experience behind the bench.

 

   Legally though, it seems this one small aspect of the case can go forward in court. Now to me, if that is the case, then it's better  to see it go forward and succeed or fail on it's own merits. It seems likely to fail, so I'm not sure what these groups are crying about. If the manufacturer didn't choose the marketing campaign they did, they wouldn't have been in this situation. 

So it is strange to think that a judge might be swayed by their own emotional or political leanings?  In my opinion it is pretty naïve to think that judges are not human.  Now whether they are right or wrong is a matter of opinion.

[NikLR 13,220]

28 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Yes I did.  Just wanted to point out that you (more likely your husband) chose to break the law in buying some of your guns, so what would even more laws do for us as a nation?  Criminals usually don't care about laws, by definition.

 

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-colorado/

 

 

Law wasnt there when the guns were purchaed.  But thanks for the info so we can make sure to obey all laws going forward!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, NikLR said:

Law wasnt there when the guns were purchaed.  But thanks for the info so we can make sure to obey all laws going forward!

If purchased prior to April 2013, then you are golden.

 

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0198.htm

 

I wasn’t suggesting you guys are actually lone wolves in not doing background checks.  I never have either, other than when buying from a dealer. Like you (I am guessing), both parties knew and trusted each other, which I think negates the BG check, if you’ve known them for a long time.  But I would never sell a gun to a stranger without going thru a dealer, just to protect myself; but that’s me being worried about a future lawsuit.

 

The last time I bought a gun, they did not even do a BG check on me, because my CCW permit was less than a year old.