HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Newtown Families' Lawsuit...

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 08:34 AM

Newtown Families' Lawsuit Against Remington Arms Dismissed

Source: WFMY News (CT CBS affiliate)




HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A Connecticut judge has dismissed a lawsuit by Newtown families against Triad based Remington Arms.

The company is the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

The case was dismissed on a federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by the Madison company to strike down the lawsuit.


Read more: http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/nation/newtown-families-lawsuit-against-remington-arms-dismissed/336272025

46 replies, 3427 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Newtown Families' Lawsuit Against Remington Arms Dismissed (Original post)
aikoaiko Oct 2016 OP
mdbl Oct 2016 #1
riversedge Oct 2016 #2
Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #4
cstanleytech Oct 2016 #29
stone space Oct 2016 #3
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #5
Paladin Oct 2016 #6
groundloop Oct 2016 #12
Paladin Oct 2016 #15
cstanleytech Oct 2016 #30
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #20
christx30 Oct 2016 #31
packman Oct 2016 #7
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #8
Cha Oct 2016 #9
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #13
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #16
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #17
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #18
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #19
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #21
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #22
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #23
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #24
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #25
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #26
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #27
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #28
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #33
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #34
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #38
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #39
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #42
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #44
wordpix Oct 2016 #37
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #40
branford Oct 2016 #41
branford Oct 2016 #32
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #36
branford Oct 2016 #45
wordpix Oct 2016 #35
yallerdawg Oct 2016 #43
hack89 Oct 2016 #46
sinkingfeeling Oct 2016 #10
aikoaiko Oct 2016 #11
sinkingfeeling Oct 2016 #14

Response to aikoaiko (Original post)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 08:36 AM

1. They should sue the NRA

for blanket endorsements of gun use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mdbl (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 08:42 AM

2. Congress needs to remove the gun manufacturer's exemption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 08:56 AM

4. There already are 6 exceptions

 

Just making a legal product that only can be sold by federally licensed dealers should not be a reason for a lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mdbl (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 01:45 PM

29. Probably would fail due to first amendment issues. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Original post)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 08:51 AM

3. Fuck the PLCAA and fuck the NRA and fuck the filthy, filthy religion of Gundamentalism.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Original post)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 09:29 AM

5. I am glad PLCAA is in place to protect manufacturers/dealers from frivolous lawsuits.



The victims of the Sandy Hook massacre were victimized by Adam Lanza -- not Remington Arms.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 09:42 AM

6. Well, of course you're glad.

And you probably want us to believe that the Sandy Hook slaughter would have been just as bad, if Lanza had entered the school with a Remington Model 700, a five-shot, bolt action rifle, designed for the one-at-a-time killing of game animals rather than clusters of human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:12 AM

12. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM

Gun worshipers feel like they have a legitimate "need" to own the biggest, baddest killing machines they can afford. There is simply no justifiable reason to own many of the weapons that we're seeing being used in these mass homicides. If you want to play with a machine gun that badly then go join a well regulated militia (i.e. Army) and have your fun. I'm not anti-gun, and in fact was a member of the NRA once upon a time when their main focus was on safety, but we MUST do something about the proliferation of weapons with no other purpose than the killing of large numbers of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:20 AM

15. Google "Trump Militia T-shirts" and look at the gun images set forth on them.

Assault rifles with big magazines, not Winchester Model 70's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 01:49 PM

30. I am far from a worshiper, in fact I dont even own one nor do I want to and

I support things like background checks, licensing requirements and other things that are common sense for people that want to own a gun but at the same time the fact is the 2nd amendment does exist and until its amended we have to deal with the problem as best we can and people (no, I am not saying you are doing it) behaving like a child and calling people people names doesnt help one tiny little bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 11:05 AM

20. I will remind you that CT had an Assault Weapons Ban in place & the Lanza rifle was compliant


And the post-massacre federal AWB legislation only required that the Lanza switch out the grip to remain compliant.

Focusing on the rifle and its design is not working for people who wish to actually save lives, but it is a useful strategy for enriching the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 02:01 PM

31. Maybe more should have been done to treat Adam Lanza

for the host of mental and physical problems he had. His mom seemed to accommodate him rather than try to force treatment. Maybe he should have been forcibly committed for his various problems instead of being allowed to walk the streets.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/nyregion/before-newtown-shootings-adam-lanzas-mental-problems-completely-untreated-report-says.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Original post)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 09:44 AM

7. Doesn't surprise me -

I would like to see the factories of gun manufactures torn down and salt sprinkled over the ground of those unholy places. But, sadly, I believe this was a wrong approach by those families - God bless them. The fuckin' NRA and our Congress are one beast in this case and that beast needs to be addressed. Really time to take a good hard look at the Second Amendment with a Supreme Court making some decisions to curtail this madness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Original post)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 09:46 AM

8. Hillary's position:

From Stronger Together, pg. 207

And we will stand up to the gun lobby. Under an immunity law passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2005, victims of gun violence cannot legally hold irresponsible gun dealers or manufacturers accountable in most cases where their actions endanger Americans. Since the law was passed, nearly every lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers has been dismissed. The executive vice president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, has called the immunity law "the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in 20 years." We will repeal this law entirely and hold the gun industry accountable.

Now is not the time to be silenced or intimidated. As long as children anywhere are being killed by gun violence, we will keep fighting for our kids - because they deserve leaders who stand up for them, stand up to the gun lobby, and fight for real change.

2016 Democratic Party Platform, pg. 39

Preventing Gun Violence

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 09:55 AM

9. Thank you, yallerdawg!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:12 AM

13. Hey, Cha!

I was watching the TV series, The Exorcist, last night.

Set partially in Chicago, they mentioned 4,000 gun victims in Chicago this year as an example of the great evil that exists and grows in America today.

I agree - we need to exorcise the gun lobby evil from Congress, our courts, and the American psyche!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:25 AM

16. As the strongest Hillary supporters often say, Hillary doesn't have to be perfect to vote for her.

I think she is wrong about the complete revocation of PLCAA although I would consider modifications. The protections are needed because of the disingenuous culture war against the right to keep and bear arms that seeks to bankrupt gun makers and gun sellers. Gun makers can be sued successfully under PLCAA when:

  1. an action brought against someone convicted of “knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence” by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;

  2. an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

  3. an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;

  4. an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

  5. an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

  6. an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4



And I think she is wrong about reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban. CT had an AWB in place and the Lanza rifle was compliant. A thirty dollar part change (the grip) would have made it compliant with the new AWB that was proposed after the Sandy Hook massacre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #16)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:38 AM

17. Here's the NRA refuge.

"Everything would be alright if the government would just enforce the laws we have."

And...

"They are coming after our guns!"

Same tune, different day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #17)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:48 AM

18. "Ban guns" and "Sue Manufacturers into Bankruptcy" are not better tunes.

But I do appreciate that your mileage may vary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #18)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 11:02 AM

19. Exact NRA talking points!

Silly wabbit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 11:11 AM

21. Have you read post #8


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #21)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 11:18 AM

22. Post #8?

That's your source for quotes?

I don't see "Ban guns" and "Sue Manufacturers into Bankruptcy."

But I do know where to find those quotes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #22)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 11:19 AM

23. Without being snarky....

I do see that she wants to ban hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and handguns as they are currently configured with the AWB.

And part of the purpose of removing PLCAA is to make it more expensive for gun makers and sellers even if they successfully defend every suit. Suits will be used on small sellers causing them to go out of business.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #23)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 11:35 AM

24. Sorry.

See none of that in post #8.

None of that in her book, none of that in the 2016 Democratic Party Platform gun section posted in toto!

It is a very familiar and consistent ad hominem attack on Hillary, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #24)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 12:02 PM

25. Your response suggests that you are not familiar with what the AWB from post #8 does nor....


...the gleeful rhetoric from anti-gun groups when the cigarette companies got hammered with fines and settlements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #25)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 12:19 PM

26. Where is the expired Assault Weapons Ban mentioned?

Or are you just telling us what we really mean?

The closest thing I can see is sort of "keeping weapons of war...off our streets."

That's your "ban" and you argue "for weapons of war...on our streets."

I hope this isn't a critical issue for you, since there is one candidate and party that fully supports your position...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 12:38 PM

27. Its fascinating how you edited that part of the sentence. Let's look at the unedited version.


"and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets."

She explicitly mentions "assault weapons" and their "large capacity magazines" which are defined by the various Assault Weapons Ban bills. HRC has discussed bringing back the AWB many times in her campaign -- even in the first debate.

And, again, I am voting for HRC in the general election because she is the best choice, but I also believe she and the party are wrong on this issue.

You don't have to like it -- but I'm a Democrat for Hillary, too.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #27)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 12:48 PM

28. "Off our streets" is not a ban.

If you want "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" on our streets, I'm pretty sure that is a fringe position.

Stronger Together, pg. 206

We're not here to repeal the Second Amendment.

We're not here to take away your guns.

We just don't want you to be shot by somebody who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #28)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 02:11 PM

33. AR15s are not laying on our streets -- "off our streets" is a metaphor for civilian ownership

I have never heard HRC say she was against an Assault Weapons Ban.

She voted and co-sponsored Assault Weapons Ban legislation while a senator.

And more recently....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/clinton-calls-for-a-new-assault-weapons-ban-12-years-after-the-last-one-expired/
[font color="red" size="20" face="face"]Clinton calls for a new ban on assault weapons, 12 years after the last one expired[/font]

The first decade after the ban expired suggested that its political potency had run out. In 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) offered a modified assault weapons ban as part of the doomed post-Newtown gun safety package. It won just 40 votes, losing 15 Democrats, mostly from Western states and red states. Democrats thought they'd found a better angle on the terrorism issue in 2015, when all but one of them, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), backed an amendment to a health-care bill that would have prevented people on the FBI's watch list from obtaining guns. Clinton, whose electoral map does not include some of the red states where Democrats have been tripped up on gun votes, has signaled that she would go much further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #33)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 02:35 PM

34. More NRA propaganda.

As you can plainly see from her recently published book and the Democratic Party platform, she is not proposing any of these things you keep drumming up.

If there are any Democratic representatives supporting your NRA positions, then nothing you are condemning Hillary for is even possible!

If there are no Democrats supporting your positions - .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #34)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 02:59 PM

38. If you consider her legislative record and WaPo NRA propoganda, I'll just stop now.


It is hard to know where all the current Democrats are on PLCAA and AWB right now.

Please remember that it was you who dragged Hillary and the party platform into this thread as if to make some point.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #38)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 03:10 PM

39. The point is...

Democrats oppose these un-American shield laws - which I guess you are celebrating?

It may mean nothing to you - but our positions on gun safety reform are core values of what we support.

Deflect and obfuscate all you want.

We are what we are.

You are what you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #39)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 03:17 PM

42. I will admit that my position on PLCAA is a minority opinion within the party.


That is why we discuss things instead of merely copying and pasting the party platform whenever a topic is discussed. Many of us diverge from the party line on various issues.


Nice chatting with you.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #42)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 03:20 PM

44. Always a pleasure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #25)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 02:53 PM

37. so---you're for continued private sale- no fly list- -gun show buyers having

no background checks?

I know this has nothing to do with the court case but neither does your post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #37)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 03:11 PM

40. I could live with background checks (Manchin-Toomey plan) with a corresponding increase in liberty


Such as lifting all import bans on rifles and handguns. The Manchin-Toomey plan (2013) would have covered private sales at gun shows and private intra-state internet sales.

I'm for No fly, No Buy as long as there is meaningful due process and accountability. Sadly Democrats voted against a bill that would have attached to No Fly list to the NICS prohibited lists because the government would have to appear in court to justify the denial. Banning people from purchasing firearms through Federal Firearms Licensees cannot be an unaccountable process.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #37)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 03:15 PM

41. All sales from an FFA, regardless of whether its at a gun show,

 

require a background check.

Moreover, the no fly list is a civil rights abomination that affects thousands of innocent people with little recourse to remove themselves. Most progressive abhor it and similar government lists, and the fact that they suddenly like it because it might restrict guns demonstrates nothing but blatant hypocrisy. If the government believes someone is unfit to own firearms based on objective, legally-sustainable criteria, they can go to court, with the accused provided all due process and related rights.

Ironically, with respect to private sales, universal background checks would also likely already have become law if gun control advocates didn't always insist on making making such a law a de facto federal government firearm registration list and attaching other gun control wish list items like assault weapon bans and magazine limits to proposed legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #17)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 02:11 PM

32. The NRA is referring to the criminal laws against firearm misuse,

 

and they are largely correct that enough is not being done to prosecute those who illegally possess firearms, or more importantly, break existing laws concerning straw sales. Are you so blind in your rage against the NRA, a group that represents less than 5% of gun owners, that you choose to ignore a common point of interest between them and purported gun safety advocates?

Moreover, just a cursory read of this thread alone proves that many indeed would like nothing more than to totally outlaw guns. When President Obama and Hillary Clinton cite restriction regimes such as Australia (i.e., bans through compulsory buybacks) as a model for American restrictions, it does nothing but strengthen groups like the NRA both politically and financially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to branford (Reply #32)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 02:53 PM

36. "Blind in my rage?"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #36)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 03:24 PM

45. Sigh...

 

Do you ever wonder why you and others are so unsuccessful in passing gun control legislation?

You've made the NRA, an organization that represents less than 5% of all gun owners, the ultimate boogeyman, and then blame it for all you multitude of failures.

Complaining about the NRA or its nebulous, yet infamous, "talking points," does not constitute substantive discussion on the issue of guns nor refute their arguments or policies.

None of this affects me personally. I live in a very safe area and don't hunt, don't own any firearms and am not a member of the NRA. However, I am an attorney and both support Second Amendment (and all other constitutional) rights as well as limited restrictions that might actually achieve greater safety.

If the best gun control advocates can muster is juvenile and asinine internet meme posters of Wayne LaPierre, you should really get used to losing the wider gun control debate, and might as well concede most southern and exurban states and districts to the Republicans.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 02:51 PM

35. thanks for this and bravo, Hillary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #35)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 03:17 PM

43. Aren't we glad Samsung doesn't have a shield law?

Gun manufacturers are obligated to do nothing to make our children safer!

'Cause Congress took away the incentive we have for gun manufacturers to do right!

Just "more guns"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #43)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 04:18 PM

46. You can sue gun makers for defective products

Look no further than the suits against Remington regarding the Model 700

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Original post)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:08 AM

10. My stupid RW newspaper's headline was that Remington was cleared of

charges!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:10 AM

11. Which paper was that?


That's amazing that a newspaper wouldn't understand the difference between criminal and civil court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #11)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:16 AM

14. Arkansas Democrat Gazette. At least it wasn't on front page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread