Jump to content


Welcome to Long Island Firearms, Long Island's premier source for news and education!

Welcome to Long Island Firearms, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of Long Island Firearms by signing in or creating an account. You also have the ability to login with your facebook or twitter account. See the icons in the upper right hand corner.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here
Get the latest facts on the new NY SAFE gun laws that effect you!

Photo

Sandy Hook Plaintiffs Appeal to Connecticut Supreme Court


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 jimmy958

jimmy958

    Gun Guru

  • Club LIF Member
  • 1,501 posts

Posted March 06 2017 - 04:37 PM

'As Dean Weingarten reported, the lawsuit filed against Bushmaster Rifles, wholesaler Camfour
Holding, and retailer Riverview Gun Sales by survivors and family of Adam Lanza’s Sandy Hook
attack was dismissed by a Connecticut court. It was exactly the kind of lawsuit that Congress had
specifically barred in the federal Prevention of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

They sought monetary damages from a firearms manufacturer for injuries and deaths that, in the
words of the court, 'were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon [by one person:] Adam
Lanza.' Despite the clear and definitive judgement by lower court judge Barbara Bellis, the
plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The PLCAA was enacted when plaintiffs’ attorneys and municipalities — flush with money and energy
after successful lawsuits against tobacco companies — decided that the firearms industry presented
the best way to enact their preferred policies and make a few dollars along the way.

Congress granted a general and broad immunity for firearms manufacturers against lawsuits for
injuries coming from misuse of firearms. The law does, however, allow a number of exceptions under
which suits may proceed.

One of those is for matters of negligent entrustment, a common law tort that occurs when a
dangerous article is entrusted to a person whom the lender knows, or should know, is likely to use
it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of harm to others.

. . .

The PLCAA also allows lawsuits to proceed in cases where a manufacturer or seller violated a
state law applicable to the sale or marketing of the firearm, and the violation was the
proximate cause of the injury."

Read more: https://www.thetruth...-supreme-court/

# Advertisement

Advertisement

Posted A minute ago



#2 JohnnieW

JohnnieW

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted March 06 2017 - 04:54 PM

Very interesting stuff. 
 
It is an aspect of gun rights that I have never really thought about.
 
This whole idea of trying to go after the companies to the point where it is impossible for them to do business is just horrible.
 
I can't imagine any judge entertaining setting this type of precedent. Can you imagine a car company getting sued because a drunk driver ran into someone?
 
Misuse of a product cannot be blamed on the manufacturer of that product. It doesn't even make sense. 

  • 38 sup likes this

#3 Gary_Hungerford

Gary_Hungerford

    SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee

  • Club LIF Member
  • Others: , , ,
  • 4,995 posts
  • LocationEverywhere, all the time

Posted March 07 2017 - 07:59 AM

 

Very interesting stuff. 
 
It is an aspect of gun rights that I have never really thought about.
 
This whole idea of trying to go after the companies to the point where it is impossible for them to do business is just horrible.
 
I can't imagine any judge entertaining setting this type of precedent. Can you imagine a car company getting sued because a drunk driver ran into someone?
 
Misuse of a product cannot be blamed on the manufacturer of that product. It doesn't even make sense. 

 

 

Unfortunately, common sense and the plain language of the federal statute won't stop these morons, whose real goal is to bankrupt the gun sellers and manufacturers, with frivolous law suits. If my memory serves, the lower court also awarded court costs to the defendants, which had to be paid by the plaintiffs. Hopefully, the CT Supreme Court will do the same.

Gary


  • NRATC53 likes this

#4 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Soon to be Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 20,948 posts

Posted March 07 2017 - 08:47 AM

Unfortunately, common sense and the plain language of the federal statute won't stop these morons, whose real goal is to bankrupt the gun sellers and manufacturers, with frivolous law suits. If my memory serves, the lower court also awarded court costs to the defendants, which had to be paid by the plaintiffs. Hopefully, the CT Supreme Court will do the same.

Gary

Yup, Bloomberg and his minions stated they would bankrupt the firearms industry with their suits



#5 ProGodProGunProLife

ProGodProGunProLife

    Gun Guru

  • LIF Site Moderator
  • Others: Club LIF Member

  • 6,106 posts
  • LocationSuffolk

Posted March 07 2017 - 09:03 AM

It should be a felony for plaintiffs and especially for lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits like this one.   They are abusing the court system to try to violate the civil rights of others.  They belong in prison.

 

Now that we have a GOP Congress and POTUS, they should pass a law to criminalize lawsuits barred by PLCAA and impose 5 years in jail and a $10 million dollar fine for every plaintiff and lawyer found guilty of filing a suit barred by the act. .  



#6 Tracee

Tracee

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 106 posts
  • LocationSea Cliff, NY

Posted March 07 2017 - 10:27 AM

Any decent judge would see that a person bringing a frivolous action like this is abusing the system for their potential gain, and /or to bankrupt the defendant in the process. Kudos to the judge in this case by awarding damages to the defendant.
On a personal level, my ex was trying this scheme during my divorce, purely a vendetta. The judge saw this for what it was and read them the riot act about using the courts as their playground.

#7 JohnnieW

JohnnieW

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted March 20 2017 - 01:47 PM

Unfortunately, common sense and the plain language of the federal statute won't stop these morons, whose real goal is to bankrupt the gun sellers and manufacturers, with frivolous law suits. If my memory serves, the lower court also awarded court costs to the defendants, which had to be paid by the plaintiffs. Hopefully, the CT Supreme Court will do the same.

Gary

 

That reminds me of the sugar tax happening in PA. I saw some coverage where a soda manufacturer is talking about having to lay off workers because the sales are down for that plant as a result of the higher cost. (High tax making the cost of the soda higher, and people buying less of it due to a lack of finances/jobs.)
 
Then this politician goes on about how the company is trying to hold jobs hostage and is just playing the victim.
 
The fact of the matter is, that politician is using that law to destroy not only those jobs but every job related to soda. The basis of the law's reasoning is that soda is bad. 
 
Poor people buy it, so poor people get fat. So he wants to make it more expensive so poor people won't buy it, and hopefully curb the obesity rates.
 
Then they take the money fro the taxes and put it back into the low-income neighborhoods. It is going to fun education.
 
But it is only going to fund education as long as it has a viable/taxable business to leech off of. So eventually, those tax dollars will be gone, that funding will be gone, and all of the jobs around the company will be gone.
 
I get having a different morality based on a different value hierarchy. I do. But I do not understand destruction without replacement. If you focus and destroying institutions without planning for the issues their absence will create, then you are constructing the downfall of civilization. And there is no truly moral philosophy that can justify that.
 
But I digress. 
 
It seems that they are trying to do the same thing with guns. Go after their money on a moral crusade, that is intended to destroy the entire industry. 
 
If they want to destroy the gun industry, they should at least have a cogent argument based on principles that are consistent. But I guess with consistency, it is easier to see that the foundation of the entire premise is filled with all kinds of logical holes.


#8 zzrguy

zzrguy

    That Guy

  • LIF Site Moderator
  • Others: Club LIF Member

  • 10,096 posts
  • LocationIn a dark corner in the center of my happy place.

Posted March 20 2017 - 07:39 PM

Now pay for you frivolous law suit. Youve wasted time and money better spent on helping the mentally ill not lining your pockets.



#9 Banzai

Banzai

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 2,192 posts

Posted March 20 2017 - 08:53 PM

I am totally for frivolous lawsuits. If I recall correctly, after that nutjob shot up the movie theater in Colorado, one of the families of a victim was hustled into suing Lucky Gunner (pretty sure that's who it was), an online store where he legally bought the ammo. Its horrible to wish ill on a family after they already lost so much, but hey...play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They lost the suit as well, duh, and were hit with something like a $260k bill for the defendant's legal fees and court costs. So by all means, wage the frivolous lawsuits, lose your life savings for misdirected anger, and suck the momentum out of those gun grabbing halfwits who are obsessed with a totally misguided agenda. Everytime they lose, it sets a precedent for other gun grabbing nonsense to get shot down.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users