A judge in Connecticut denied a motion by the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle maker to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 10 families of victims of the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Freedom Group, the Madison, N.C., parent company of AR-15 maker Bushmaster Firearms, argued it was protected by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.
But Judge Barbara Bellis ruled the law doesn't prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook from arguing the AR-15 is a military weapon and shouldn't have been sold to civilians.
"We are thrilled that the gun companies' motion to dismiss was denied. The families look forward to continuing their fight in court," Josh Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, said in a statement.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
This is a yuge case!
ReplyDeleteThe suit will make it possible to expose the HOAX of Sandy Hook once and for all. I can't wait for the evidentiary hearing.
I suppose if Connecticut is going to insist that those children were murdered, then it is only right to demand the gun maker be held accountable. It should be lots of fun. The only defense for the gun maker is that there was no shooting and nobody died. Don't think they can pull that one off.
ReplyDeleteThis stupid judge doesn't know the law. It will be thrown out!
ReplyDeleteSo if a Corvette or Porsche driver mows down people at a bus stop, should the car maker be liable because the claim will be that the car was designed for a race track and shouldn't have been sold to the public?
ReplyDeleteWhat stupid idiot progressive judges we have infecting our legal system.
I thought the M4(?) was the fully automatic military model, and an AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun just like the 200+ other designs of semi_auto guns for our legal domestic use.
ReplyDeleteHad no idea the AR-15 was a military model gun.
Maybe this judge knows more than the Marines...
5:16, everybody knows that Porsches and Corvettes are not made for military use! Now, if you're driving a Hummer or a VW Thing...GUILTY!
ReplyDeleteThe AR-15 is not made for the Military. The M-16 is a Military weapon. It looks almost identical to the AR-15. The M-16 has automatic capabilities with a flip of a switch. They are outlawed in several states or you have to obtain a special permit. Does this mean a 308, Mossberg 500 and the Remington shotgun are Military weapons, to name a few? These weapons have been used in wars / Military conflicts through Military contracts. How many knives will this involve? The gun or knife has to have a human being to abuse their use for them to be dangerous. They cannot raise themselves, point themselves, aim themselves nor pull the trigger by themselves nor lock themselves in a safe. So how can the weapon / maker be held liable? It all comes down to the person who has the weapon in their hands. Where is the human responsibility?
ReplyDelete5:09...you are obviously in the tank for the poor victims.
ReplyDeleteThere is CERTAINLY more than the "only" defense you assume the gun makers have and 6:03 is weak minded , too.
I suppose you're ready to go after knife makers, too?
These people are looking to get paid and their lawyers are hoping this case will allow them to retire at 35.
Dictators and tyrants move to disarm the population as one of their first actions.
You don't think we have any wanna-be tyrants, do you?
Just keep cheering. Might as well stick with what you're good at.....
False flag with poor crisis actors.
ReplyDeleteThe Bushmaster does what the person holding it tells it to do.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds to me like we've got another Diane DeGette except this one isn't a California House of Representatives politician, this one's a GD judge. You can dress 'em up in fine clothes and black robes but stupid is still stupid.
ReplyDeleteAn AR-15 sold to the public is a 'military' weapon is pure BS. This judge knows it, the defense knows it, the prosecution knows it and everyone else knows it.
People lash out of pain and judges only back these groundless nonsensical lawsuits which is perplexing considering on an appeal after a verdict (which we can all guess what that'll be considering the judge involved just refused to dismiss the nuisance case) the lower court decision will probably be reverse - hence, wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers and plaintiffs' money. The court systems have turned into a big money machine. While I have empathy for their loss, guns don't kill people, people kill people. They can't go after the perpetrator because he's gone along with his mother. They need to process their grief in a more constructive way rather than lashing out. Disgusting the decay of our society.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteLocal judges often must run for re-election.
Not unusual for them to render a decision that isn't accurate but will be acceptable to the voters, knowing all the while it will be set aside after appeal. Sad but true.