Families of Sandy Hook Victims Plan to Sue Bushmaster

Who owns Bushmaster?
Cerberus Capital, Windham Weaponry,Freedon Group?

Who owned it when the Sandy Hook rifle was purchased and back in 2002 when Bushmaster caved to the Brady Campaign and does it matter?
 
More to the point, they should be suing the Town of Newtown and the school district, for failing to provide a safe environment for the kids.
Click to expand...
Right, but this isn't really about culpability or restitution. It's about punishing the "gun lobby" for being, well, the "gun lobby."

That's the strawman they created, and they want to punish it.
 
I understand that they have razed the school where it happened. I can sort of understand that, removing the constant visual reminder, and all that...

I have also heard where Sandy Hook either has, or is planning to acquire the Lanza home, so they can raze it also.

I wonder how far they are willing to go....
 
The absurdity has no limit. By their logic, Boeing is responsible for the 9/11 attack, as well as Kalishnikov for today's mass shooting of a school in Pakistan.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bushmaster (or whoever owns them now), Camfour, & the dealer settle. Not too encouraging.
 
If anybody needs to be used it's the school for not providing adequate security, and/or the federal gov. For the posting of 30.06 signs on every school in the country. The counter suit for this could be bigger than the first one, but I'm sure not a lawyer.
 
That's the problem: it didn't fail in 2003, when Bushmaster decided to settle rather than run up more legal bills.
Click to expand...

Honestly the two cases seem to have very little in common. The rifle in question in 2003 was stolen from a gun store, a store which apparently had an unusual number of "lost" guns. It was claimed that Bushmaster was at fault for continuing to sell to the store. Whether or not we agree with the implications of the settlement there are some interesting and relevant questions there.

The current case by comparison is nothing but a shill for gun control, specifically assault weapons bans.
 
In US vs. Miller (1939) the USSC essentially said that any weapons which were useful for militia duty (military usefulness) were likely protected by the 2nd Amendment. The people filing this lawsuit are saying that the AR15 is essentially a military or law enforcement weapon only. Seems to fly in the face of what the Supreme Court in US vs. Miller stated as far as what types of firearms were protected by our 2nd Amendment.
 
Interesting to note here. Ted Kennedy, the unabashed gun hater, at one time lobbied to ban pistols because they served no military purpose; therefore, he claimed they were not protected by the 2A. ( that surprised me since I carried a pistol throughout my military career)

Later, he wanted to ban AW because they were only for military use. ..It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be anti gun for some folks!
 
Jim Page, no one ever accused the gun control supporters of using facts and logic in their arguments for more gun control. I can understand the emotional aspect for the parents of the children who were murdered. I don't understand them directing their anger at a company which manufacturers a legal product, especially when that legal product comes under the protection of our 2nd Amendment. Their emotions seem to be clouding their logic and reason. That's sad and unfortunate.
 
USAFNoDak said:
In US vs. Miller (1939) the USSC essentially said that any weapons which were useful for militia duty (military usefulness) were likely protected by the 2nd Amendment. The people filing this lawsuit are saying that the AR15 is essentially a military or law enforcement weapon only. Seems to fly in the face of what the Supreme Court in US vs. Miller stated as far as what types of firearms were protected by our 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
That likely has no bearing on the outcome of a civil suit based on product liability.
Merad said:
The current case by comparison is nothing but a shill for gun control, specifically assault weapons bans.
Click to expand...
I'm not so certain. I think it may be a bit more insidious. From the court filing, per Tom Servo:
[Bushmaster] should have used technology that prevents the rifle from being used by anyone besides the actual owner.
Click to expand...
From the Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder link in Tom Servo's post:
Josh Koskoff said:
Among other protections, the 2005 [Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] provides immunity to gun manufacturers even where the gun defect causes injury or death when the injury or death is caused by a "volitional act that constitutes a criminal offense."...

Perhaps the worst part of the arms act is that it creates a disincentive for gun companies to incorporate safety mechanisms that are available to prevent guns from being used by any one other than the permit holder. Everyone agrees that there is a rampant problem with guns falling into the hands of people other than the permit holder...

Ways to prevent guns from being used by others have been around for decades... [including] "personalized" guns with thumb or palm print technology and other biometric markers. Available technology would make it nearly impossible for a gun to be used by anyone other than the authorized user, and would not affect the gun's utility.

Just as car lovers continue to love cars despite air bags and seat belts, gun lovers will continue to love guns with this technology... the legal community need to continually test the limits of the 2005 arms act until it is repealed.
Click to expand...
It makes me wonder if this lawsuit is actually more of a veiled attempt to cow Bushmaster into bringing a "smart" AR-15 to market, by arguing that the PLCAA is serving to quash the technology.

This would predictably be followed by several restrictive states falling all over themselves to pass laws requiring this technology on EVERY semi-auto rifle and handgun. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Carguychris, you are likely correct. I see them going after a "legal" product as being "too dangerous" (in their words) for civilians to possess. This is somewhat similar to how they went after the tobacco companies. Though tobacco was and still is legal, they sued the companies for making a legal product which they knew was damaging to the health of America. I see this as an area where the new Surgeon General might step in to play some role.
 
Tom Servo said:
Eugene Volokh has some interesting thoughts in an article here.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, Volokh's argument is that the PLCAA is expressly intended to prevent the courts from proverbially "legislating from the bench" regarding gun control, and that most of the complaints in the filing are clearly aimed at doing this.

I agree with him, and I think this suit is ultimately doomed to fail.

However, as I allude in my prior post, I don't think KK&B is filing this suit in good faith. I think it's a SLAPP-type suit, albeit with a slightly different target than the typical SLAPP. They're likely forum-shopping for a judge whom they feel is hostile to gun rights and supportive of Hail-Mary product liability claims, and who will allow them to vent their spurious arguments rather than immediately dismissing the suit, thus allowing the defendants' legal bills to pile up. :mad:

As evidence: the filing makes literally hundreds of claims against dozens of defendants, and they're filing in CT state court; CT (as I understand it) lacks anti-SLAPP laws.

That's why I think they're actually gunning (pun intended) for some sort of settlement that may not be strictly monetary.

Of course, this is speculation. :)
 
Watching a story on this on the tube, they did mention that Bushmaster previously paid a settlement in a similar case but I didn't catch which one.

Sometimes gun folks will fight the suit but pay something to shut down further appeals. Ruger did that on an unmodified Blackhawk. Guy dropped it and it shot him. Ruger claimed successfully that there was a free mod and the guy knew it and didn't do it. So they won. But they still gave him a chunk of change to avoid and appeal.
 
To elaborate on Chris' post, SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. It's basically intimidation through the legal system. Copyright trolls have used it to stifle speech, patent holders have used it to stifle innovation, and the nuisance liens brought by the sovereign citizen guys fit the bill. The central idea is to wear someone down through attrition.

Yeah, in some ways, this is the strategy behind the modern gun-control movement. I hadn't put those two together until you mentioned it.
 
It was only a matter of time.
Lawyers looking to make money, people pushing an agenda, and misguided grief.
Click to expand...
No, this one isn't about making money. It IS about pushing a gun control agenda. That's it.

I do think that the suit against Bushmaster is frivolous and I hope the lawyers are sanctioned.
 
If an arsonist kills a family by starting a house fire with a Bic lighter...well, you get the rest of the story.:rolleyes:
 
In Dec of 2012 the Freedom Group, said they were going to sell Bushmaster as a result of public outcry over Sandy Hook.

Now that they are being sued, it's hard to imagine they will spend much time and money putting up any kind of defense.

"The private equity firm that owns Remington Arms, Marlin Firearms and Bushmaster, which made the gun used in the Newtown killings, is selling the businesses as a result of the outcry over weapons since Friday.

Those gun-makers and several others are part of a company called Freedom Group, a dominant force in the firearms industry in the past five years. Freedom Group was assembled and is 95 percent owned by Cerberus Capital Management, which said in a statement Tuesday that it will sell the group of companies".

http://articles.courant.com/2012-12...-industry-marlin-firearms-private-equity-firm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top