Judge rules Newtown families' lawsuit against gun maker can go forward

Below is a copy of the article that appeared on the Fox website today.

Judge rules Newtown families' lawsuit against gun maker can go forward!

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. – A lawsuit can go forward against the maker of the rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, a judge ruled Thursday.

Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.

Lanza, 20, killed 20 first-grade students and six educators on Dec. 14, 2012 with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle that his mother had bought legally. Lanza killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home with a different gun before going to the school a few miles away, and then killed himself as police arrived.

The families of nine children and adults killed at the Newtown school and a teacher who survived the attack are suing Remington Arms, the parent company of Bushmaster Firearms, which made the weapon used in the school shooting.

Lawyers for Remington Arms sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the federal law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products. They said Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.

Judge Bellis ruled Thursday that argument would be best made in a motion later in the process and is not grounds to dismiss the lawsuit.

Lawyers for Remington did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, argues there is an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others.

"We are thrilled that the gun companies' motion to dismiss was denied," he said. "The families look forward to continuing their fight in court."

Debate over the 2005 law has resurfaced in this year's presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton has criticized fellow Democrat Bernie Sanders' for supporting it when it was passed.

 

I could preach to the choir but my opinions will only mirror what most on this forum would agree to so I will forgo the rambling and call this total B.S.

Enough said.

 

yup!

 

In my opinion this decision by tJude Bellis is another thing that is wrong with our society. To cast some responsibility on the manufacturer of the firearm for the actions of an individual who used this firearm is without merit. Just another case of trying to show that somehow everyone should have responsibility for an individuals action.

 

Should this ever come about, the next decision will be should the auto manufacturer that made the vehicle that the shooter used to get to the shooting be held responsible for their participation in the days actions or any other frivolous action some a$$hole lawyer can dream up!

 

Does that mean I can sue the maker of the auto that that drunk used to kill my brother, 2 cousins and an uncle. Can I sue the car dealer and salesman who sold the drunk the car? Can I sue the maker of the beverage they drank,the maker of the glass/mug that was used to hold the booze they drank and the State for issuing the fool a license in the first place? I can go on and on with this. It's not the gun maker or the gun but the individual but if we are going to change things I'm going to need a lawyer.

 

This is the proverbial "can-of-worms" that instigates tons of frivolous lawsuits.

"If you or a loved one has taken Zolreto for any medical reason, you or they may be entitled to a large cash settlement"

Get the point? Now...lets start talking in circles!