Ammo For Sale

« « I do like to say that but . . . | Home | In privacy news » »

This should go well

Disregarding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, a judge has ruled a case against the gun makers may proceed because of the Newtown shooting. And it’s stupid:

Judge Barbara Bellis ruled Thursday that a federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.

A lawyer for the families had argued there is an exception in 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.

Good. I hope that is the argument. They will lose.

12 Responses to “This should go well”

  1. rickn8or Says:

    Oh, there are so many ways that argument is wrong. Not a military weapon, and there are a few million of them out there that routinely do not harm others.

    I’m hoping the rest of the plaintiff’s case is as flimsy.

  2. Fred Says:

    Rick – Lots of ways. Did you stay at a holiday in express or watch Judge Judy?

    Since the manufacturer can’t be held liable, then who is the victim in the sale of the weapon “that should not have been sold?” Nobody. The buyer liked the gun and the seller liked the money. Sounds like a mutually beneficial, agreed upon, contract. Judge Judy wins again.

  3. KM Says:

    The buyer liked the gun and the seller liked the money

    Then the buyer was murdered by her son using another gun and the carbine taken.
    It MUST be the manufacturers fault. (since there isn’t anyone else with a deep pocket around)

  4. rickn8or Says:

    Fred, I’ve never thought of applying that argument, but it seems reasonable.

    How the manufacturer or seller complying with the law when selling of one of the most thoroughly-regulated items in the marketplace can be held reliable is beyond me. If I had powers such as predicting who was going to do what with which firearm, I’d be rich because I’d go spend half an hour a day at the roulette wheel.

  5. Kristophr Says:

    A state judge being stupid. This will cost the state a bunch of cash once this gets to federal court.

  6. The_Jack Says:

    “This will cost the state a bunch of cash once this gets to federal court.”

    So? It’s not their money.

    Meanwhile the defendents *they* have to spend out of pocket.

    And either way this goes the antis can use it to bang their drum.

  7. mikee Says:

    On the other hand, if this case succeeds, the subsequent lawsuits against alcohol companies, automobile manufacturers, oil companies, electricity generators, government employees at every level, heck, everything and everyone, on this newfound tort’s basis will leave us all sitting in the dark, cold and hungry, waiting for the cessation of life as an end to our misery.

    So we have that to look forward to, which is nice.

  8. Jake Says:

    Sebastian has more. Looks like this is a technical/procedural ruling, and the defendants can still try again. I haven’t read it myself, but according to Sebastian:

    But the judge ruled that many of the defendants claims speak to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, and if they are going to argue legal sufficiency, they can’t do that in a Motion to Dismiss which argues that the Court in question has no jurisdiction to hear such arguments.

    So, basically, it seems the judge is saying “You made the wrong argument for what you’re trying to do, so I can’t grant this motion.”

  9. MJM Says:

    Judge Bellis just did even more damage to the judiciary. No wonder the people want to restrain the judicial “independence” they are always whining for.

  10. Siergen Says:

    You are assuming that they haven’t already rigged the system to get a corrupt judge who will rule in their favor regardless of the arguments. And when the Republicans in the Senate cave in and let Obama stack the Supreme Court…

  11. JohnnyDerp Says:

    Judege Bellis spoke at the plaintiffs law firm. Conflict of interest?

    https://www.cttriallawyers.org/events/event.cfm?EventID=2184

  12. Jeffery Says:

    Uh… The AR-15 was invented FIRST. The Military was looking for a new general issue weapon. They chose to base the M-16 off of the AR-15, not the other way around. So, this so called “military weapon” is based upon a “varmint gun.”