|
Post by subzero350 on Dec 15, 2014 16:08:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 15, 2014 16:17:19 GMT -5
Misguided anger.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 15, 2014 16:51:04 GMT -5
......and greed by the lawyers.. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105EXEMPTION FROM TORT LIABILITYThe Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct. This would be like suing General Motors if some drunk ran over someone with a Chevy..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 17:47:58 GMT -5
This would be like suing General Motors if some drunk ran over someone with a Chevy.. Not ONE OUNCE of difference.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 15, 2014 17:59:20 GMT -5
There is a lawyer out there that should be fined for filing that lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Dec 15, 2014 18:01:12 GMT -5
......and greed by the lawyers.. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105EXEMPTION FROM TORT LIABILITYThe Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the "Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: "To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct. Yea, but we have several laws in this country that are regularly disregarded by activist judges that don't agree with them. Why would this one be any different?
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 15, 2014 18:06:14 GMT -5
Its a class action suit......must be some reason they filed it that way.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 15, 2014 20:40:19 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I thought a police report somewhere stated that Adam Lanza had used handguns in the shootings and the AR was still locked in the trunk of the car he stole to drive to the school.
Oh..... did they sue the car manufacturer get sued too?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 15, 2014 21:07:48 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I thought a police report somewhere stated that Adam Lanza had used handguns in the shootings and the AR was still locked in the trunk of the car he stole to drive to the school. Oh..... did they sue the car manufacturer get sued too? The seeming contradiction over how Adam Lanza could have used a Bushmaster version AR-15 rifle in the shootings when that same weapon was supposedly found locked in the trunk of his car afterwards was cleared up a few days later. The weapon found in the trunk of Lanza's car was a shotgun, not an AR-15: Read more at www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp#krxCphTYzKKtttv7.99
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 15, 2014 22:36:35 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I thought a police report somewhere stated that Adam Lanza had used handguns in the shootings and the AR was still locked in the trunk of the car he stole to drive to the school. Oh..... did they sue the car manufacturer get sued too? The seeming contradiction over how Adam Lanza could have used a Bushmaster version AR-15 rifle in the shootings when that same weapon was supposedly found locked in the trunk of his car afterwards was cleared up a few days later. The weapon found in the trunk of Lanza's car was a shotgun, not an AR-15: Read more at www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp#krxCphTYzKKtttv7.99Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Dec 15, 2014 23:07:58 GMT -5
Isn't Bushmaster owned by Cerberus (the same company that owns Remington)?
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 16, 2014 7:32:58 GMT -5
Yep; my favorite bunch - Freedom Group.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 16, 2014 8:18:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 16, 2014 15:05:19 GMT -5
Well I guess anyone who has ha a loved one killed in a car wreck can start suing Ford, GM, Dodge and other car makers...maybe we can sue Burger King cause we got fat..People are freaking stupid these days.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Dec 16, 2014 15:44:43 GMT -5
I can't understand how this suit has any merit. If a drunk is driving a Chevrolet and kills someone, Chevrolet isn't liable. Why should Bushmaster be held liable for a kid stealing his mother's legally purchased firearm and going on a killing spree? I could see a lawsuit against her estate, but not the manufacturer or seller.
If bushmaster (or their parent company) settles out of court on this suit (or loses) the gun industry in this country is done...
|
|