# Sandy Hook Parents about to sue AR-15 manufacturer... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143 "2014-12-13T17:53:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/61 "2014-12-15T17:09:50Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Why don’t you go look up mass shootings involving bolt action rifles, see if the manufacturer was sued and report back to us? One of the most infamous mass shooters, [Charles Whitman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman), used a bolt action 6mm to kill his victims. If I am misinterpreting your point, NM. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/62 "2014-12-15T17:10:59Z")
And the death of a child that is shot and killed by a bolt action rifle results in just as much grief and heartbreak for the parents as the death of a child that is shot and killed by an assault rifle. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/63 "2014-12-15T18:39:18Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > And the death of a child that is shot and killed by a bolt action rifle results in just as much grief and heartbreak for the parents as the death of a child that is shot and killed by an assault rifle. Yes, but the nice thing about the latter is that there are so many more of them. ---
**Author:** ![August\_West](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/august_west/32/18069_2.png) [@August\_West](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/August_West)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/64 "2014-12-15T18:41:02Z")
Well, they’ve [done it](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/15/newtown-families-sue-rifle-manufacturer-distributor-and-seller-for-wrongful-death/). From the article: "The AR-15 is described in the lawsuit as a “military weapon” that “has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes,” and the families accuse the gunmaker, distributor and seller of knowing that selling such a weapon to civilians means “individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them.” ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/65 "2014-12-15T18:45:53Z")
I really don’t see which exception they are going for. The suit should be dismissed under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act immediately. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/66 "2014-12-15T19:22:47Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > False premise. I own several firearms. None of them were purchased for the primary purpose of self-defense, they are used for hunting or target shooting. Sure, that’s true for you, but these days I usually encounter this sentiment expressed among people saying things like “When the gibmedats run out, _those people_ are going to swarm out of the ghetto towards us hard-workin’ Murkins…” These same people claim to fear the government, but they seem to love armed state power when it’s not being used against them. > [@](#): > > Agreed, this comment is valueless. Firearms are vulgar weapons. > [@](#): > > Sporting clays simulates hunting birds and occasionally, rabbits. It is completely normal to have the opportunity to fire multiple times at such game. I thought it was a substitute for live targets, and I admire a marksperson who can hit with the first shot rather than spraying projectiles, but fair enough. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to bother. You’re [not even wrong.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong) I wanted to pre-empt the “I kill animals for food!” argument. One of the best things we can do for ourselves is to eat less meat, and as for the sporting argument, it doesn’t seem like fair play when the prey cannot return fire. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/67 "2014-12-15T19:25:55Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > Firearms are vulgar weapons. What does this even mean? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/68 "2014-12-15T19:26:41Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > Well, they’ve done it. > > From the article: "The AR-15 is described in the lawsuit as a “military weapon” that “has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes,” and the families accuse the gunmaker, distributor and seller of knowing that selling such a weapon to civilians means “individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them.” Does the fact that an AR-15 was NOT used make any difference to the courts (appeal assumed)? Will the fact that the monster stole the weapon from the legal owner make any difference to a court trying to determine if the manufacture is at fault for not selling a firearm to this monster? ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/69 "2014-12-15T19:28:46Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > What does this even mean? It means what I wrote earlier. With edged weapons, one must stand toe-to-toe with one’s opponent. It’s more honorable. If people must be violent (and it is _not_ a must), they can at least do so with some measure of honor, instead of hiding from the consequences of their actions. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/70 "2014-12-15T19:31:05Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > It means what I wrote earlier. With edged weapons, one must stand toe-to-toe with one’s opponent. It’s more honorable. If people must be violent (and it is _not_ a must), they can at least do so with some measure of honor, instead of hiding from the consequences of their actions. Honorable? Feh. This kind of romanticizing of violence sickens me. How many people have you ever stabbed or slashed, Chuckles? ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/71 "2014-12-15T19:42:43Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Honorable? Feh. This kind of romanticizing of violence sickens me. How many people have you ever stabbed or slashed, Chuckles? None at all! On the contrary, I don’t want to romanticize, I want to de-industrialize and personalize, not to mention removing the possibility of harming bystanders. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/72 "2014-12-15T21:49:23Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > What does this even mean? He’s pining for a lightsaber. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/73 "2014-12-15T22:06:07Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > No, but it’s fairly irrelevant argument by association. “If you have the right to say anything you want, I have the right to own any weapon I like” is pretty nonsensical. Also representative of the absurdity of most absolutist pro-gun arguments. > > Sorry, JLA. The right to speak is not the same as the right to own weapons powerful enough to drop an entire squad of armored cops. And there is absolutely no conceivable purpose to civilians owning weapons that can deliver 20, 30 or more shots in a matter of seconds. Not hunting. Not target shooting. And not any but the most extreme and contrived defense situations. The functionality of the firearm you just described was never, in any iteration, present at Sandy Hook. Your implication that it was is misinformed at best, or an **outright lie** at worst. You’re (deliberately?) confusing full-auto (which _still_ can’t “drop an entire squad of armored cops”) with semi-auto. And you’re laboring under the (deliberately?) mistaken assumption that the 2nd Amendment has fuck-all to do with hunting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/74 "2014-12-15T22:20:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I really don’t see which exception they are going for. The suit should be dismissed under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act immediately. I agree, I think. I can’t see any allegation in the suit that the manufacturers knew their gun would be used in a crime – as opposed to knowing there was a risk associated with their product, which the suit does allege. Nor does the suit allege a design defect that was the proximate cause of the injury. Can anyone explain how this suit can survive dismissal under the PLCAA? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/75 "2014-12-15T22:24:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree, I think. I can’t see any allegation in the suit that the manufacturers knew their gun would be used in a crime – as opposed to knowing there was a risk associated with their product, which the suit does allege. > > Nor does the suit allege a design defect that was the proximate cause of the injury. > > Can anyone explain how this suit can survive dismissal under the PLCAA? Makes me wonder whether the whole point of filing the suit is so that it is immediately dismissed, to try to generate outrage on the left, and try to create some momentum for gun control. If so, they really picked a bad time to do that. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/76 "2014-12-15T22:25:48Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Makes me wonder whether the whole point of filing the suit is so that it is immediately dismissed, to try to generate outrage on the left, and try to create some momentum for gun control. If so, they really picked a bad time to do that. Is there ever a good time to do it? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/77 "2014-12-15T22:27:16Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > this is about the silliness of spending money on lawyers trying to file a suit when there is a law that explicitly and categorically says you can’t do it. Eh, I think I get it. They want at least some good to come from their kids’ deaths, some sort of positive change to reduce the chances of this happening again. Passing gun control legislation didn’t happen, so now they’re trying to pressure the gun manufacturers directly through legal action. I agree that it’s probably futile, but grief breeds desperation. I would add that I don’t think the law technically says they can’t sue… just that they won’t win. So far as I know, it’s not prohibited to sue someone for something they aren’t legally liable for. That’s just not a great recipe for legal victory. But IANAL. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/78 "2014-12-15T22:36:39Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I would add that I don’t think the law technically says they can’t sue… just that they won’t win. So far as I know, it’s not prohibited to sue someone for something they aren’t legally liable for. That’s just not a great recipe for legal victory. But IANAL. The law provides that suits are dismissed – in fact, it specifically says that even suits pending at the time it was passed are immediately dismissed. It would be extremely difficult to imagine a law that says “You can’t sue.” I could sue you tomorrow for failing in your duty to dance like a marionette and make me laugh. The law, in other words, almost never says, “You can’t sue.” But it pretty definitively says a suit of this type is immediately dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/79 "2014-12-15T22:37:30Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I would add that I don’t think the law technically says they can’t sue… just that they won’t win. So far as I know, it’s not prohibited to sue someone for something they aren’t legally liable for. That’s just not a great recipe for legal victory. But IANAL. From the law: > [@](#): > > (a) In general > A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. > (b) Dismissal of pending actions > A qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending. > > … > > (5) Qualified civil liability action > (A) In general > The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include— > > … > > (b) Purposes > The purposes of this chapter are as follows: > (1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended. > > … ---
**Author:** ![The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e79b87/32.png) [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Joker_and_the_Thief)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143/80 "2014-12-15T22:48:35Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > I wanted to pre-empt the “I kill animals for food!” argument. One of the best things we can do for ourselves is to eat less meat, and as for the sporting argument, it doesn’t seem like fair play when the prey cannot return fire. Thanks for telling me how to live my life. To return the favor, I declare that you should only eat rice and beans, and donate the rest of your food budget to charity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandy-hook-parents-about-to-sue-ar-15-manufacturer/707143.md?page=5)