You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Families of Sandy Hook Victims Plan to Sue Bushmaster
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
Originally posted by Tom Servo
A group of families, organized by the law firm of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, is planning to bring a wrongful death suit against Bushmaster Firearms because one of the company's rifles was used in the Sandy Hook shooting. In theory, such a lawsuit would be forbidden by the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In practice, it's not as clear.
A Bushmaster rifle was also used in the 2002 DC Beltway shootings. The Brady Campaign brought suit against them, and the company eventually settled. Doing so set a terrible precedent, and the lawyers smell blood in the water.
I think it's probably worthy of mention that both the DC Beltway shootings and the subsequent settlement by Bushmaster (the article in your link was dated 2004) predate the passage of the PLCAA; it was signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2005. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to have an educated opinion on whether or not the PLCAA will protect Bushmaster in this case (though my gut tells me that it will), but I do know that it could not have possibly protected them from the lawsuit over the DC Beltway shootings because it had not yet become law.
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.
Can anyone show me the palm print & biometric markers guns that have been around for decades?
Pond James Pond
New member
It's a bit of a perfect storm, in a way.
There are parents who, quite understandably, want to express their grief and rage at what has been done to them and their children; arguably a completely senseless act. The perpetrator is dead, the person responsible for the firearms that were used is dead (his mother if I recall). Who is left? The company who made the gun. Perhaps the ammo company, or the mag manufacturer.
Then we have a lobby group with an agenda. I suspect the grass roots members truly think they are doing something that is for the of benefit of society. We, here, no doubt agree that their logic is flawed. They no doubt feel that ours is. However, I would be surprised if those running these lobby groups aren't a tad more cynical, recognising that the publicity is money and money is their job security.
Then there is also the claim culture. There is a reason that companies who produce peanuts feel obliged to add the warning that "contents may contain nuts" because someone, somewhere may try and sue for their anaphylactic shock suffered from eating something they were allergic to...
I can't blame the parents for clutching at any straw handed to them given the sense of anguish and injustice they must be living on a daily basis. Nor would I expect them to view this situation as rationally or objectively as we might.
I do blame the lobbyists for pretty shameless tactics and I do blame the lawyers who, despite being in the business of making money, should also be in the business of upholding the law and respect for it.
Cases like this do not do either, IMO. I hope the company fight it and I hope it is thrown out ASAP, with the Lobby group footing both parties legal fees and a widely publicised apology to the manufacturer as part of the settlement.
There are parents who, quite understandably, want to express their grief and rage at what has been done to them and their children; arguably a completely senseless act. The perpetrator is dead, the person responsible for the firearms that were used is dead (his mother if I recall). Who is left? The company who made the gun. Perhaps the ammo company, or the mag manufacturer.
Then we have a lobby group with an agenda. I suspect the grass roots members truly think they are doing something that is for the of benefit of society. We, here, no doubt agree that their logic is flawed. They no doubt feel that ours is. However, I would be surprised if those running these lobby groups aren't a tad more cynical, recognising that the publicity is money and money is their job security.
Then there is also the claim culture. There is a reason that companies who produce peanuts feel obliged to add the warning that "contents may contain nuts" because someone, somewhere may try and sue for their anaphylactic shock suffered from eating something they were allergic to...
I can't blame the parents for clutching at any straw handed to them given the sense of anguish and injustice they must be living on a daily basis. Nor would I expect them to view this situation as rationally or objectively as we might.
I do blame the lobbyists for pretty shameless tactics and I do blame the lawyers who, despite being in the business of making money, should also be in the business of upholding the law and respect for it.
Cases like this do not do either, IMO. I hope the company fight it and I hope it is thrown out ASAP, with the Lobby group footing both parties legal fees and a widely publicised apology to the manufacturer as part of the settlement.
Pond said:There are parents who, quite understandably, want to express their grief and rage at what has been done to them and their children; arguably a completely senseless act. The perpetrator is dead, the person responsible for the firearms that were used is dead (his mother if I recall). Who is left? The company who made the gun. Perhaps the ammo company, or the mag manufacturer.
The School Officials and the State legislators that created the Unsafe, Unprotected environment.
Pond James Pond
New member
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
.... Who is left? The company who made the gun. Perhaps the ammo company, or the mag manufacturer.
The School Officials and the State legislators that created the Unsafe, Unprotected environment.
Well, this was my point.
If one follows the chain of parties who are somehow connected with this event, one can find a logic for them all to be "responsible", yet unless one of them had prior knowledge of Lanza's intent and did nothing, or worked Lanza up to it in the first place, then the blame doesn't hold water.
It's an endless butterfly effect...
Perhaps this was stated and I missed if but unless all proceeds are going to a charity or anyone other then the claimants and lawyers it's financially motivated disguised by morality. If they believe the laws passed in CT are effective, why not sue Malloy or the state for not enacting them before the tragedy.
God bless the victims
God bless the victims
why not sue Malloy or the state for not enacting them before the tragedy.
Because, with very limited exceptions, politicians and the govt. cannot be sued, or otherwise held liable for laws they pass, or do not pass. The only recourse is to not re-elect (or in some places, recall) the politician(s) that fail us.
One can sue to get a bad law overturned, but one cannot sue the people that passed the law. Or didn't pass the law you wanted...
These lawsuits are about greed and need, and that's all. Greed on the part of agenda driven people (including the law firms involved) to get their message heard again, and possibly get a court to enhance their agenda in some way, and need, on the part of the victims families for something to be done, some form of punishment, for someone, for the loss of their child.
As far as I'm concerned, the "trail" of who is responsible begins and ends with the person who pulled the trigger. Lanza killed his mother, stole the guns, went to the school,murdered children and teachers and killed himself. These facts are not in dispute. He CHOSE to do this. Why he made that choice is of no import (other than our curiosity). Why he did it changes nothing about what he did.
Build any kind of house of cards you want, build a skyscraper if you can, if you remove Lanza's willful decision to commit murder, they all collapse and fall flat.
He is the key, and the sole responsible party. And he's dead. So the natural human desire for punishment of the guilty is refocused, by slick talking agenda driven hucksters, to focus on those who, while being circumstantially involved, have no actual responsibility for the deaths.
Just because a particular style gun, hated above the rest by the anti gun people, was involved they claim the maker, seller, and buyer (in this case, now dead also) are responsible.
There is nothing else on Earth that I can think of where rational people would even begin to entertain such a claim. If (for example) Lanza had stolen a car from his (murdered) mother and driven it through crosswalks killing multiple children then crashed it killing himself, would ANYONE even think of suing the auto maker, and the dealer who sold it to Mrs Lanza?
If the claims of the suit's filers were even remotely valid, where are the bodies? There are millions of these types of guns in private hands in the US, and they have been for generations. IF the claims about how dangerous these things are were true, we would have tens of thousands (at least) of mass killings all over the country, all the time. We don't.
Doc Intrepid
New member
Two quick points:
1. We have already seen the Attorney General of the United States propose during a nationwide news conference more emphasis being placed on technology such as "rings" that a firearms owner must wear in order to enable their firearm to function. It is doubtful the Attorney General was musing off the cuff, and indeed we saw similar language used in the wake of Sandy Hook by Vice President Biden during his ill-fated efforts to pass anti-gun legislation. It would be reasonable to assume that the function of this lawsuit, proposed by the plaintiffs in accordance with a broader agenda, is to "make sure this never happens again".
It therefore follows that one purpose of the lawsuit would indeed be to focus a national conversation on the adoption of "safe technologies" that create "smart guns" that will only function for specific operators.
(Indeed it would be interesting to know the source of the money used to pay the lawyers. One might not be surprised to see funding sources from some familiar opponents...)
2. Another insidious outcome of such legislation would be to quickly adopt requirements for the same technology on all other firearms. The point has already been made by those more articulate than I am that had Lanza used a semi-automatic shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot he may very well have achieved an even higher rate of lethality. If you're going to argue with a straight face that any firearm capable of inflicting unacceptable losses on civilians belongs only in the hands of the military, then ultimately such an argument would include shotguns, and eventually ALL fireams - because, of course, even one civilian fatality is unacceptable...
This lawsuit is not about Sandy Hook so much as it is about forcing gun control measures on the American public by other (judicial) means - just as Clauswitz stated that "War is Politics Carried On By Other Means".
The intent of the lawsuit, IMHO, is to incrementally degrade the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to a point where it is essentially deemed by the courts to be no longer relevant (at least to civilians).
1. We have already seen the Attorney General of the United States propose during a nationwide news conference more emphasis being placed on technology such as "rings" that a firearms owner must wear in order to enable their firearm to function. It is doubtful the Attorney General was musing off the cuff, and indeed we saw similar language used in the wake of Sandy Hook by Vice President Biden during his ill-fated efforts to pass anti-gun legislation. It would be reasonable to assume that the function of this lawsuit, proposed by the plaintiffs in accordance with a broader agenda, is to "make sure this never happens again".
It therefore follows that one purpose of the lawsuit would indeed be to focus a national conversation on the adoption of "safe technologies" that create "smart guns" that will only function for specific operators.
(Indeed it would be interesting to know the source of the money used to pay the lawyers. One might not be surprised to see funding sources from some familiar opponents...)
2. Another insidious outcome of such legislation would be to quickly adopt requirements for the same technology on all other firearms. The point has already been made by those more articulate than I am that had Lanza used a semi-automatic shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot he may very well have achieved an even higher rate of lethality. If you're going to argue with a straight face that any firearm capable of inflicting unacceptable losses on civilians belongs only in the hands of the military, then ultimately such an argument would include shotguns, and eventually ALL fireams - because, of course, even one civilian fatality is unacceptable...
This lawsuit is not about Sandy Hook so much as it is about forcing gun control measures on the American public by other (judicial) means - just as Clauswitz stated that "War is Politics Carried On By Other Means".
The intent of the lawsuit, IMHO, is to incrementally degrade the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to a point where it is essentially deemed by the courts to be no longer relevant (at least to civilians).
Ultimately, they only care about "smart" guns to the extent that the implementation will punish the illusionary "gun lobby."It therefore follows that one purpose of the lawsuit would indeed be to focus a national conversation on the adoption of "safe technologies" that create "smart guns" that will only function for specific operators.
That was the undercurrent to last year's post-Newtown "conversation." The idea was to create an imaginary juggernaut (mostly the NRA) upon which to blame their failures to get legislation passed. Then they can play the martyr/underdog card when it blocks their proposals from passing.
This is an extension of that. These lawyers don't want to punish Bushmaster for Sandy Hook; they want to punish Bushmaster for simply being a gun manufacturer.
2ndsojourn
New member
From Crankgrinder:
"If anybody needs to be [sued] it's the school for not providing adequate security,..."
Well, it happened.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sa...ools-citing-lax-security/ar-AA864Wt?ocid=iehp
Only two families involved so far, that's a start. But we all know who the real culprit is.
The article states that one teacher in particular (a substitute teacher that day) didn't have a key to lock the door.
"If anybody needs to be [sued] it's the school for not providing adequate security,..."
Well, it happened.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sa...ools-citing-lax-security/ar-AA864Wt?ocid=iehp
Only two families involved so far, that's a start. But we all know who the real culprit is.
The article states that one teacher in particular (a substitute teacher that day) didn't have a key to lock the door.
The sad irony is that those plaintiffs will be criticized for bringing an opportunistic and predatory lawsuit by the same people who are bringing an opportunistic and predatory lawsuit against Bushmaster.Only two families involved so far, that's a start. But we all know who the real culprit is.
I brought this up in another venue a few months after Sandy Hook. When I suggested some responsibility on behalf of the school board and faculty, I was told it was in poor taste.
I was told it was in poor taste.
I'm of the opinion that both lawsuits are in poor taste. One against a tool maker and another against the local educators and government.
Neither belong in the courtroom for this atrocity since neither pulled the trigger.
I just see things simply and don't apologize for it.
As far as I'm concerned, the "trail" of who is responsible begins and ends with the person who pulled the trigger. Lanza killed his mother, stole the guns, went to the school,murdered children and teachers and killed himself. These facts are not in dispute. He CHOSE to do this. Why he made that choice is of no import (other than our curiosity). Why he did it changes nothing about what he did.
That is the same scenario that played out at the Red Lake High School massacre in Minnesota a few years ago. That one didn't get much attention IMHO because although the shooter killed his grandfather and stole his guns and body armor, Grandpa was a tribal policeman. So the story didn't fit the "only the police should have guns" narrative.
One student intervened and tried to stab the shooter in the neck with a pencil. That didn't work out so well, obviously. If only he'd been able to carry a knife...