Families of 10 Newtown victims file lawsuit against gunmaker, distributor, store

[Arthur Dent]

It's amazing how money can "comfort" those that lost their childern. The world is full of greedy people that always want to point the finger at someone else, so that they can fatten their bank accounts.

The ones that will get rich? The lawyers.

 

[edporch]

If there's anybody in this that has any fault, it's Nancy Lanza for allowing her nutcase son to be able to access her firearms.
Had she properly stored them, simply killing her wouldn't have allowed him access to them.

Yet I don't hear much on anybody suing her estate for damages.

Which shows me that these lawsuits are mostly just frivolous "deep pockets" lawsuits with no merit.

 

[singlesix]

They did sue Lanza's estate.

 

[HoughMade]

If there's anybody in this that has any fault, it's Nancy Lanza for allowing her nutcase son to be able to access her firearms.
Had she properly stored them, simply killing her wouldn't have allowed him access to them.

Yet I don't hear much on anybody suing her estate for damages.

Which shows me that these lawsuits are mostly just frivolous "deep pockets" lawsuits with no merit.

Closer, but I don't even buy that as a basis for a lawsuit. Regardless of how stored, when it took a murder/robbery, I don't think we should hold a victim liable for what someone else does with the guns.

 

[sharkey]

.... Might belong in it's own thread, but it's not like it's a huge amount of content... but I found this interesting:

Newtown votes to raze home of gunman in school massacre - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

Sounds like something out of a third-world country.

Forrest Gump did it first.

 

[HoughMade]

The ones that will get rich? The lawyers.

You've got a real ax to grind. Grudge from your LSAT score keep you out of law school?

 

[Roadie]

If there's anybody in this that has any fault, it's Nancy Lanza for allowing her nutcase son to be able to access her firearms.
Had she properly stored them, simply killing her wouldn't have allowed him access to them.

Yet I don't hear much on anybody suing her estate for damages.

Which shows me that these lawsuits are mostly just frivolous "deep pockets" lawsuits with no merit.

I think she is partially to blame, yes, but the guns could have been in a locked safe and Adam could have found the key after killing her.

 

[HoughMade]

I think she is partially to blame, yes, but the guns could have been in a locked safe and Adam could have found the key after killing her.

Being partially to blame, factually, and whether that should be a basis for liability, two different things.

 

[KLB]

If there's anybody in this that has any fault, it's Nancy Lanza for allowing her nutcase son to be able to access her firearms.
Had she properly stored them, simply killing her wouldn't have allowed him access to them.

Yet I don't hear much on anybody suing her estate for damages.

Which shows me that these lawsuits are mostly just frivolous "deep pockets" lawsuits with no merit.

I'm sure she had some idea her son would kill her, steal her guns and go shoot a bunch of other people. Then she just ignored it and let it all happen.

 

[Arthur Dent]

You've got a real ax to grind. Grudge from your LSAT score keep you out of law school?

Ax to grind? Hardly. You're the one starting out with an insult.

 

[JollyMon]

Round 1 goes to Remington... Basically "The case moved one step closer to a possible dismissal yesterdays as lawyers for Remington won the argument to move the case to a more palatable federal court" since "The 2nd Circuit has previously refused to hold gun manufacturers liable or permit lawsuits against gun manufacturers for injuries caused by third parties"

Bearing ArmsRemington Wins Opening Move In Bizarre Sandy Hook Lawsuit - Bearing Arms

 

[HamYankee]

Too bad. It doesn't make any sense. But I think some group might have got to the families and used them and their grief as tools to forward an agenda. Maybe.

 

[HoughMade]

Round 1 goes to Remington... Basically "The case moved one step closer to a possible dismissal yesterdays as lawyers for Remington won the argument to move the case to a more palatable federal court" since "The 2nd Circuit has previously refused to hold gun manufacturers liable or permit lawsuits against gun manufacturers for injuries caused by third parties"

Bearing ArmsRemington Wins Opening Move In Bizarre Sandy Hook Lawsuit - Bearing Arms

That's good to hear, but removal to federal court is pretty much automatic when the requisites are present.

Also, it was moved to the District Court for the District of Connecticut, not to the 2d Circuit. The 2d Circuit is an appeals court that would hear an appeal if the case got that far and the cases decided by it in the past will be binding on the District Court, but the article was incorrect to say ot was "moved to the 2d Circuit". Anyhoo, maybe that's too "inside baseball" to matter right now.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Fourth Circuit rewrites Heller en banc. The majority should be embarrassed to have published this garbage.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

 

[actaeon277]

Okay. Can anyone simplify for me

 

[SSGSAD]

Basically, they say that LARGE CAPACITY magazines, and

"assault weapons", are NOT protected under the second "A" .....

I still don't understand what a large capacity magazine is .....

I use STANDARD ISSUE magazines .....

20 round, US Army, and 30 round USMC .....

 

[Mgderf]

Okay. Can anyone simplify for me

Looks to me like they decided that "AR15 TYPE rifles" are not protected by the 2nd amendment

 

[actaeon277]

Basically, they say that LARGE CAPACITY magazines, and

"assault weapons", are NOT protected under the second "A" .....

I still don't understand what a large capacity magazine is .....

I use STANDARD ISSUE magazines .....

20 round, US Army, and 30 round USMC .....

I thought the Supreme Court ruled years ago that military weapons were specifically protected by the 2nd amendment. They even made it a determining factor in a case, saying because the weapon in the case was not military related, that it was NOT protected.

Or is this a case in them wanting cake, and also to eat it?

 

[Fargo]

I thought the Supreme Court ruled years ago that military weapons were specifically protected by the 2nd amendment. They even made it a determining factor in a case, saying because the weapon in the case was not military related, that it was NOT protected.

Or is this a case in them wanting cake, and also to eat it?

Yes, US v Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) held that the second amendment explicitly protected weapon suitable for military use by the individual. It is mis-cited in this garbage opinion on page 21. The essential holding in Miller was that because the defendant never entered any evidence that short-barreled shotgun's were suitable for military use, they would not find them to fall within the second amendment. It made no such rule in about machine guns or anything of the like.

The opinion repeatedly cites both Heller and Miller for propositions 180° opposed to what was actually held in those opinions.

Political garbage.

 

[migunner]

Just sad. I am sure some Anti and Lawyers are leading this move.