Newtown Families File Lawsuit Against Bushmaster

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,098
Likes
6,148
The end game here is a de facto AWB.

Any monetary judgement in their favor would ensure that manufacturers would have no
choice but to discontinue semi-auto rifle sales, and dealers would have to remove them from their racks.

The just had a short clip on fox 25 with the attorney. Everything he said was these are military guns, velocity, high power, etc. Said Bushmaster knew they were super deadly and shouldn't be in the hands of civilians. Cops are ok though (even though they are civilians too)

You are right.
 

Jason Flare

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
10,189
Likes
9,816
Location
Berkshires
The just had a short clip on fox 25 with the attorney. Everything he said was these are military guns, velocity, high power, etc. Said Bushmaster knew they were super deadly and shouldn't be in the hands of civilians. Cops are ok though (even though they are civilians too)

You are right.

We're the militia.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,456
Likes
23,487
We're the militia.

Only those of us who are males between 18 and 45 or female members of the national guard. I was discharged from the militia years ago (according to USC)

- - - Updated - - -

Bushmaster/Remington I can see having the cash to fight.
And they would be foolish not to.
The dealer or distributor would be the ones to get hurt in the long run.
No matter what I can't ever see it being won because he wasn't the legal purchaser/ possessor to begin with .
Just harassment and publicity stunt IMHO.
The last time this happened (DC Sniper), Bushmaster's insurer (who gets to make the settlement decisions) decided to cough up $500+K.

Any monetary judgement in their favor would ensure that manufacturers would have no
choice but to discontinue semi-auto rifle sales, and dealers would have to remove them from their racks.
You mean like how the above mentioned DC sniper settlement stopped all mfgr of AWs?

The DC sniper case was settled in Sept of 2004, the immunity law was signed into law in Oct of 2005.
Good info. There is still plenty of room for a judge to find some excuse to ignore the immunity law, keep the case alive, and pressure the parties to settle. Remember, there are few things the court hates more than plaintiff's counsel going home without a paycheck - after all (s)he is a brother/sister attorney.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,204
You mean like how the above mentioned DC sniper settlement stopped all mfgr of AWs?

Big difference.

One is a "settlement"... as in "we don't have the time, money or patience to deal with this shit anymore. Here's your money,
now leave us the **** alone and go away", whereas a "judgement" carries legal standing/precedence until decided or otherwise
overruled.

The DC Sniper case had little, if any ramifications... other than providing the antis with some propaganda, and Bushmaster
catching a lot of flak from our side for "settling"

Good info. There is still plenty of room for a judge to find some excuse to ignore the immunity law, keep the case alive, and pressure the parties to settle. Remember, there are few things the court hates more than plaintiff's counsel going home without a paycheck - after all (s)he is a brother/sister attorney.

The court also hates making a poor decision with the likelihood that it will be overruled at the next level.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,098
Likes
6,148
I'm not sure how there is plenty of room with an immunity law but we'll see. I think it's telling that only 9 estates signed on when there were 26 killed at the school. The lawyer was on tv in a clip earlier tonight, he looks like a class A jackass. Not a top lawyer, much more like a Sokolove advertise on tv type.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
12,136
Likes
6,580
I'm not sure how there is plenty of room with an immunity law but we'll see. I think it's telling that only 9 estates signed on when there were 26 killed at the school. The lawyer was on tv in a clip earlier tonight, he looks like a class A jackass. Not a top lawyer, much more like a Sokolove advertise on tv type.

I mentioned that in a previous post. I'm sure that the other 17 families were pressured hard to join the lawsuit and declined. IMO, all this lawsuit does is cheapen the lives and deaths of those who died in the massacre. They've been turned into nothing more than a gimmick for some quick cash. If they were suing someone who actually might have had some culpability in the massacre (either of the Lanzas' estates, the school for not providing adequate protection) there might be some merit to what they're doing. Instead they're simply trying to harm other people, who aren't involved in any way, to make a quick buck.

ETA: Can someone explain how someone who survived the attack and didn't lose any family in it has any standing to file a wrongful lawsuit against anyone, let alone an innocent party?
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,098
Likes
6,148
I mentioned that in a previous post. I'm sure that the other 17 families were pressured hard to join the lawsuit and declined. IMO, all this lawsuit does is cheapen the lives and deaths of those who died in the massacre. They've been turned into nothing more than a gimmick for some quick cash. If they were suing someone who actually might have had some culpability in the massacre (either of the Lanzas' estates, the school for not providing adequate protection) there might be some merit to what they're doing. Instead they're simply trying to harm other people, who aren't involved in any way, to make a quick buck.

ETA: Can someone explain how someone who survived the attack and didn't lose any family in it has any standing to file a wrongful lawsuit against anyone, let alone an innocent party?

Their version of PTSD. Trouble sleeping, can't return to work (even though everyone else did, including the other kids), etc.

I missed that point in your earlier post. That mark barden left his normal job to run sandy hook promise as a paying job. So he literally evens money right now from his kids death. I think hockley was the woman who used to work for mayor bllomberg prior to moving to newtown and it was her or another who was a member of the DNC and gave obama's weekly radio address 1 1/2 yrs ago. These 9 are the real anti's who were on cnn, msnbc, etc all the time.
 
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
6,665
Likes
2,107
Location
Raleigh NC
The last time this happened (DC Sniper), Bushmaster's insurer (who gets to make the settlement decisions) decided to cough up $500+K.

That's the endgame here: Get at the insurance companies who will offer a settlement instead of fighting a prolonged court battle.

And once they settle, proclaim "victory" over those evil gun companies.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,098
Likes
6,148
That's the endgame here: Get at the insurance companies who will offer a settlement instead of fighting a prolonged court battle.

And once they settle, proclaim "victory" over those evil gun companies.

That was then (no immunity law), this is now (immunity law in place). What protracted court battle, the case won't last very long as the companies are legally protected. And no way is an insurance company going to pay a settlement when there is no legal basis for the case. This is a hail mary that will end on the ground, incomplete.
 
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
6,665
Likes
2,107
Location
Raleigh NC
That was then (no immunity law), this is now (immunity law in place). What protracted court battle, the case won't last very long as the companies are legally protected. And no way is an insurance company going to pay a settlement when there is no legal basis for the case. This is a hail mary that will end on the ground, incomplete.

I disagree. Here's why:

A 2005 law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products, but it does include an exception for cases where companies should know a weapon is likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others. A lawyer for the Newtown families, Katie Mesner-Hage, said the lawsuit appears to be the first of its kind against a manufacturer to claim that exception.

The plaintiffs are claiming the defendants fall under the exemption and the case could go forward. Even if it eventually ends up being dismissed, it could still be very expensive to go through the process. And if they end up in front of an anti-2A judge they could lose.

The insurers might decide ahead of time to just settle. Keep in mind that insurance companies aren't in the business of taking a stand for our Constitutional Rights, they're in the business of mitigating risk and lowering costs. it might be cheaper for them to settle.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,204
I mentioned that in a previous post. I'm sure that the other 17 families were pressured hard to join the lawsuit and declined. IMO, all this lawsuit does is cheapen the lives and deaths of those who died in the massacre. They've been turned into nothing more than a gimmick for some quick cash. If they were suing someone who actually might have had some culpability in the massacre (either of the Lanzas' estates, the school for not providing adequate protection) there might be some merit to what they're doing. Instead they're simply trying to harm other people, who aren't involved in any way, to make a quick buck.

ETA: Can someone explain how someone who survived the attack and didn't lose any family in it has any standing to file a wrongful lawsuit against anyone, let alone an innocent party?

I disagree. Here's why:



The plaintiffs are claiming the defendants fall under the exemption and the case could go forward. Even if it eventually ends up being dismissed, it could still be very expensive to go through the process. And if they end up in front of an anti-2A judge they could lose.

The insurers might decide ahead of time to just settle. Keep in mind that insurance companies aren't in the business of taking a stand for our Constitutional Rights, they're in the business of mitigating risk and lowering costs. it might be cheaper for them to settle.


They're claiming that the defendants are liable under “negligent entrustment” which is a long shot if applied
by the definition of the law...

...

. The complaint seems to argue that the defendants are liable under the exception for “negligent entrustment” claims. “[E]ntrustment of AR-15 rifles to civilians,” the complaint says, is not “reasonable,” because civilians supposedly can’t be trusted to engage in “safe and intelligent use of those weapons,” and because states supposedly don’t adequately regulate the weapons. But the “negligent entrustment” exception to the federal Act is limited to situations where a seller “knows, or reasonably should know” that the particular buyer “is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.” Even setting the “and does,” I know of no evidence that the seller of the guns here (the exception applies only to the seller, not the manufacturer) knew or should have known that this particular buyer — the murderer’s mother — was likely to use the gun unreasonably.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...acturers-and-dealers-over-sandy-hook-murders/
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
3,385
Likes
510
"Designed for military use". Guess they never read US v Miller (1934) which states that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear weapons designed for military use (via corollary as the decision against him was based on the short barreled shotgun did not have enough of a military use to be protected).
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
18,618
Likes
19,144
Location
North Shore
I disagree. Here's why:



The plaintiffs are claiming the defendants fall under the exemption and the case could go forward. Even if it eventually ends up being dismissed, it could still be very expensive to go through the process. And if they end up in front of an anti-2A judge they could lose.

The insurers might decide ahead of time to just settle. Keep in mind that insurance companies aren't in the business of taking a stand for our Constitutional Rights, they're in the business of mitigating risk and lowering costs. it might be cheaper for them to settle.

Short term it might be.
But if they open the gates, there will be a flood coming through it.
Once they establish they will pay out at the drop of a hat, don't bother closing the check book.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,098
Likes
6,148
They're claiming that the defendants are liable under “negligent entrustment” which is a long shot if applied
by the definition of the law...

...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...acturers-and-dealers-over-sandy-hook-murders/

exception to the federal Act is limited to situations where a seller “knows, or reasonably should know” that the particular buyer “is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.” Even setting the “and does,” I know of no evidence that the seller of the guns here (the exception applies only to the seller, not the manufacturer) knew or should have known that this particular buyer — the murderer’s mother — was likely to use the gun unreasonably.

Agreed.

And the buyer didn't use the gun unreasonably, a non owner stole it. And to say AR's are likely to be in a crime, are dangerous, etc. is bullsheet. How many AR's are there and each year, what is it, .4% of murders are with an AR type rife? Rifles in general are not likely to be used, we all know the stats where hammers, fists, etc. are used in more murders than all rifles.

- - - Updated - - -

Short term it might be.
But if they open the gates, there will be a flood coming through it.
Once they establish they will pay out at the drop of a hat, don't bother closing the check book.

This. And as LoginName mentioned prior, the whole suit is an attempt at a defacto ban.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
879
Likes
267
Line 59 says the AR-15 muzzle velocity is 4000 feet per second. If I remember right the m-16a2 with a 20" Barrel and green tips is only around 2800, So a 16" barrel should be less. Correct me if I'm wrong.

22-250/Rem, 4k fps
220 swift, 4200 fps
204 Ruger, 4225 fps
223 Win Super Short Mag (ugly round), 4350 fps

These are the only rounds I know that can hit the 4k mark. I have a 22-250. I regularly get them in the 3800-4k range, depending on bullet weight.

Which AR can hit these same velocities, again? Do they have citations on where they're getting their info? Oh, that's right.........bullsh!t lies that feed the emotional low-info voter. THAT's how they like to play.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
2,731
Likes
497
Location
Central, MA
22-250/Rem, 4k fps
220 swift, 4200 fps
204 Ruger, 4225 fps
223 Win Super Short Mag (ugly round), 4350 fps

These are the only rounds I know that can hit the 4k mark. I have a 22-250. I regularly get them in the 3800-4k range, depending on bullet weight.

Which AR can hit these same velocities, again? Do they have citations on where they're getting their info? Oh, that's right.........bullsh!t lies that feed the emotional low-info voter. THAT's how they like to play.

Test Barrel (24") Velocity (fps) / Energy
(ft-lbs)
Muzzle
100
200
300
400
500
4000/1243
3354/874
2795/607
2299/411
1858/268
1479/170


http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-gr-NTX/

"Only" a varmint round. Not that many are running around shooting these out of a 24 inch barrel....
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
12,121
Likes
6,175
Location
Ma.
A 243 with 55 grain is around 4,000 fps also

22-250/Rem, 4k fps
220 swift, 4200 fps
204 Ruger, 4225 fps
223 Win Super Short Mag (ugly round), 4350 fps

These are the only rounds I know that can hit the 4k mark. I have a 22-250. I regularly get them in the 3800-4k range, depending on bullet weight.

Which AR can hit these same velocities, again? Do they have citations on where they're getting their info? Oh, that's right.........bullsh!t lies that feed the emotional low-info voter. THAT's how they like to play.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,204
Remington/Bushmaster wins round one...

Gun Maker Gets Newtown Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court

Gun maker Remington has moved a lawsuit by families of those shot in the Sandy Hook school massacre from state to federal court, where at least one expert says it has less chance of succeeding.

Nine families sued Remington and others in Bridgeport Superior Court in December arguing the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the shooting should not have been sold for civilian use because of its overwhelming firepower. A 10th family joined the lawsuit adding a wrongful death claim.

The case was placed before U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny last week after Remington argued that since it is located in North Carolina and not Connecticut, federal court was a more proper jurisdiction.

Timothy Lytton, a professor at the Albany Law School who has written extensively about suing the gun industry, said getting the case into the 2nd U.S. Circuit, of which Connecticut is a part, is a victory for the defendants.

"The 2nd Circuit has previously refused to hold gun manufacturers liable or permit lawsuits against gun manufacturers for injuries caused by third parties," he said. "It has a history of knocking these types of cases down."

More... http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gun-maker-newtown-lawsuit-moved-federal-court-28395949
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,098
Likes
6,148
"The 2nd Circuit has previously refused to hold gun manufacturers liable or permit lawsuits against gun manufacturers for injuries caused by third parties," he said. "It has a history of knocking these types of cases down."

You mean they follow the law? What a novel concept. The lawsuit has as much chance of succeeding as Elizabeth Warren has of winning a wet tee shirt contest. Ain't going to happen.

The Fed judge now handling the case is from Taunton.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,098
Likes
6,148


Great reporting by CNN
The younger Lanza was mentally unstable and used his mother's Bushmaster to kill her before he went on the rampage at the school, and then killed himself.

Umm, nope. He killed her with a .22 from the reports.

At least eight lawsuits have been filed in Connecticut courts since January on behalf of relatives of 16 people killed in the massacre -- four adults and 12 children. Court documents also list two people who suffered serious injuries.

In December, the parents of nine children killed at the mass shooting, along with one teacher who The wrongful death lawsuit, filed one day after the second anniversary of the killings, named Camfour, a gun distributor; Riverview Gun Sales; as well as the Freedom Group, the company that owns Bushmaster. It blamed the numerous lives lost in just 264 seconds on the shooter's weapon of choice, the Bushmaster.

Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, the law firm for the families in the Bushmaster lawsuit, is also representing some families in the cases against Lanza's estate.

The lawsuits were first reported Friday in the Connecticut Post, which said Nancy Lanza is believed to have had insurance on the home worth more than $1 million.

"Unlike our case against Bushmaster, Camfour (the distributor), and Riverview for the negligent entrustment and marketing of combat AR-15's designed for the military to inflict mass casualties against the enemy to civilians like Nancy Lanza, we expect this claim to be resolved quickly," attorney Josh Koskoff said of the estate lawsuits.

The lawsuits claim that Nancy Lanza kept the rapid-fire Bushmaster in her home "unsecured" and that her "carelessness and negligence" contributed to the pain and suffering of the victims.

That lawyer can EABOD's ditto the reporters.

I thought her estate was worth a grand total of $46k? How would insurance on the home have anything to do with the shooting? Even if they got that, after attorneys fees, they'll get pennies. What a bunch of lemmings these suing families are.
 
Top Bottom