[QUOTE=Lemur866]
It seems like this case has zero chance of moving forward. I guess the motivation was, “What if we filed a nuisance lawsuit to remind people that gun manufacturers are scumbags?”
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
It’s what they used to call an “M-Forgery” on gun boards 10 years or so ago. I don’t keep up with what manufacturers are up to these days, but Colt used to hold the legal rights to the M4. Maybe they still do, for all I know. There is more involved than just barrel length and a collapsing stock. There was some controversy at the time because FN won the contract to produce M-16’s and the gummint wanted to have them produce M4’s as well. Colt asserted their rights and spragged the deal. They also tried to go after any other manufacturers who tried to use the term M4 in any of their product literature. Don’t remember how successful they were on that.
The last time Bushmaster was sued, they settled out of court for $2.5 million. That could be an additional motivation.
The last time was before the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted. The act explicitly prohibits such suits and protects manufacturers against them.
We already have cut points on the use of weapons, just as we have cut points on the use of printing presses. But what other freedom is limited not by the standard of forbidding harmful actions, but by forbidding the possession of a capacity, a potential to commit harm? Outside of a crisis, would anyone in a democracy seriously argue that for the good of society there should be an upper limit on the right of assembly (you know, to prevent mobs and riots); or a limit on how fast and how widespread electronics should be able to spread messages (incite to riot, libel, dissemination of classified material)?
As for the “should we let anyone own anything” argument, a few hardcore libertarians propose just that. That the people should possess force sufficient that no government that didn’t have the active support (as in, willing to answer a summons to arms) of a supermajority of the population could have any authority. If “patrol duty” was something people had to do as a civic obligation from time to time like jury duty, we wouldn’t have a zillion bullshit laws on the books.
The framers of the Constitution didn’t foresee people living in huge, crowded cities. A lot of the current limits on speech, gun ownership, and other freedoms, are necessary because people are living so close together.
People did live in huge, crowed cities for that time period. The framers may not have foreseen planes, trains, and automobiles.
They didn’t foresee a lot of things, including blacks living free and being able to vote. If things have changed and the 2nd is no longer relevant to today’s society we have a mechanism to change the Constitution and amend or even remove an Amendment…one that has already been used, so there is precedence for it.
IF they were to have enough votes to make the change.
Yep
But alcohol related deaths in the United States is about 75,000 a year while firearm related deaths are only 30,000. So alcohol appears to be a much more dangerous product despite it not being designed to kill.
So sue them. Sounds like easy money.
Analysis from Eugene Volokh
The compliant reads as if it was written by one of Michael “16oz” Bloomberg’s ignorant, gun-grabbing minions instead of by lawyers who are actually attempting to what’s best for the families of the children. They repeatedly refer to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S as an AR15, which is incorrect, but gun-grabbing zealots don’t require facts when attempting to Gruberize the public.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1380622-sandy-hook.html
According to the complaint -
- *A. The Bushmaster XM15-E2S is a Military Weapon
- Bushmaster’s Bushmaster XM15-E2S is an AR-15 rifle, a weapon adopted by the United States military and other armed forces around the world because of its effciency as a military assault rifle.
-
- As an rifle, the Bushmaster XM15-E2S is essentially indistinguishable from its military sibling, the M16. Both weapons are designed for mass casualty assaults. Both share design features of exceptional muzzle velocity, the ability to accommodate large-capacity magazines, and effective rapid fire?
-
D. A “Civilian” Weapon with no Legitimate Civilian Purpose
- As set forth above, the combination of exceptional muzzle velocity, ability to accept large-capacity magazines, and effective rapid fire has signifcant utility in the military context. These same features make the weapon ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes*.
Wow. That is so sloppy and filled with untruths and half-truths it almost comes across as a parody, and was obviously written by someone (or someones) with a severe lack of knowledge. The referenced rifle is very much dissimilar from a military M16 in numerous respects, most notably the lack of automatic fire capability. The “exceptional muzzle velocity” is no such thing, and is identical to common varmint hunting rifles using the same caliber cartridge. The “rapid fire” is essentially the same as any number of common semi-auto pistols, rifles and shotguns owned by tens of millions of people.
I doubt that’s true. Cite?
I remember the Washington DC Beltway snipers case, in which victims sued Bushmaster and Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Washington. Bull’s Eye contributed $2 million to settle the case and Bushmaster kicked in $500,000. Is that what you meant?
Of course, that case was settled prior to the trial date of April 2005. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 et seq) was signed into law October 25th, 2005.
In other words, the last time Bushmaster was sued, when they settled for $500,000, they did so before the law forbidding such lawsuits existed.
Isn’t that correct?
Because I so rarely get to point out factual errors in your post - Bushmaster actually kicked in $550,000.
Next- everyone can sue any auto maker whose cars can exceed the speed limit. :rolleyes:
It’s even worse that that. There were only about 11,000 gun related homicides last year. ( I am not so concerned with suicides).
Second Hand Smoke kills 40,000>50000 non smokers a year. About 1000 of which are infants.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Next- there is no evidence whatsoever that gun controls reduce violent crimes.