From the law: “A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”
Fair enough. In practice I think this amounts to “lawsuit will be summarily dismissed” – but since it does in fact say that the lawsuit “may not be brought” I withdraw my nitpick.
I didn’t say anything about you being forced to live a certain way, but I did make one statement of fact, followed by one opinion. Your statement, in contrast, is disingenuous, and a straw man.
I don’t see how the reasoning of this lawsuit would not apply equally to sellers of alcohol: Any liquor manufacturer knows or should know that their product will be the cause of deaths by drunk driving, alcohol-fueled violence, and premature death due to liver failure.
I mean, no one needs alcohol, much less concentrated spirits.
For Pete’s sake. I am not some anti-gun nut but the difference is blindingly obvious A gun is designed to kill. Alcohol may make sokeone act in a way that may end up killing. Sheesh
And so what if it did apply to alcohol producers? Is there a special law that exempts them from lawsuits as well?
This is the part that gets me the most. They are suing the manufacturer of a weapon NOT used in the spree. Are they going to sue Raytheon next because of the FIM-92 Stinger that was also not used at Sandy Hook?
What are you talking about? Everything I’ve read says that he used a Bushmaster exclusively to kill the victims in the school, apart from himself.
What do you claim that he used? (If this is some trivial semantic bullshit, by the way, I will bookmark this as an example of the silly arguments I often hear from gun enthusiasts. )
‘AR-15’ is a registered trademark of Colt Firearms.
The Bushmaster is called an XM-15.
So, are they suing Colt? I understood they were suing Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the weapon used by Lanza. I smell semantic bullshit.
I thought most law is based on semantic bullshit? No?
Most law? No, not remotely.
What I’m hearing here seems to be more along the lines of “Hur, hurp! The Washington Post said Xerox when they meant photocopy! They’re suing the wrong people!”
Is there ever a good time to do it?
[/QUOTE]
Maybe when there is a Congress that is more sympathetic to gun-control ideas? This coming one is about as un-sympathetic as it gets.
I agree with you there, but by the same token, the Democratic Party has just been culled of about as many unsafe seats as you could ever have. If there was a time they would be as free as possible to bring up an issue that might leave some members vulnerable, this would be one.
Realistically the rifles in discussion from Colt or Bushmaster are functionally similar. So on the one hand you are right that there is some wordplay involved. However it seems pretty important to sue the right party - the one they are accusing of manufacturing the product in question.
Kinda like being attacked by Al Queda and in response we bombed Iraq.
In any case i am thinking the suit will be dismissed and ultimatley the cost to bring it will exceed the cost Bushmaster incurs to defend it. i found one part particularly wrong headed. The suit asserts that the Ar-15 pattern rifle is unsuitable for home defense - on the contrary it is an ideal weapon platform for clearing houses.
Not totally. A gun shoots a bullet which goes towards a target. That target could be an tin can, target, animal, or yes even a human.
Often the same barrels and internal pieces of the slides, triggers, and all are the same as other similar caliber firearms.
I’ve used an AR-15 as a deer rifle. Their advantage is they can take more abuse than a regular gun.
And schools. Which is the point.
They are suing the people that made the gun that did the shooting.
However, in their allegations of fact, they spend many paragraphs discussing a weapon that the company does not make.
It’s unclear to me if the choice was deliberate – i.e., discuss the dangerous military weapon and by implication tar the civilian version with the imprimatur of danger because they are built on similar frames – or if its accidental: the lawyers don’t really understand that they are different weapons, and thus use AR-15 as a generic term to refer to all such rifles, regardless of manufacturer or specifics.
Nor do I really care. Thus far, no one in this thread has offered any argument as to why this suit isn’t a dead letter based on the mandate of 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 et seq.
Does anyone have such an argument?
If it is a mistake to use the term AR-15 generically, it is a mistake not unique to this suit or to the authors of various press pieces. For instance, here’s text from the Wikipedia page on the AR-15:
Of course, Wikipedia is not infallible. However, this continues to feel like more of a bullshit issue; a trivial objection that I have come to associate with the aficionado crowd.
i think Bricker is right that the more interesting question is how this suit overcomes the aforementioned apparent out-of-the-gate hurdle. Clearly, someone thought it would.
Of course guns are designed to kill. They can kill the **** out of paper targets; they can kill deer and other game; they can even kill people in lawful self-defense. But guns aren’t specifically designed to murder- any more than alcohol is designed to make people homicidally impaired. In fact, the original rationale for the 1934 National Firearms Act was to control devices (sawed-off guns, full-automatics, silencers) that supposedly had no function except to make crime and murder easier- disputable, in all three cases. The whole basis of this suit is the supposition that an AR-15 style gun is some sort of special “massacre” gun, which simply doesn’t bear up under scrutiny.
If alcohol hadn’t existed until the twentieth century, it would probably be considered a dangerous addictive drug and banned. Prohibition tried this, and failed because (1) a lot of people wanted alcohol, and (2) it was trivially easy to evade the law.
When you put it that way, you’re right! This lawsuit is exactly like suing alcohol producers. Now what?