TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

Dave2 wrote: I think I heard that their argument was that "Bushmaster hadn't updated the AR-15's design to include technologies that might prevent misuse like the auto industry has done with seat-belts, antilock brakes, and traction control", even though those technologies don't do anything to prevent misuse.

That depends on what specific technologies we're talking about. If we're talking about technology that allows a single user to fire a weapon, that might mean that you can't fire a weapon that you weren't "keyed" to.
The technology exists. Lousy argument. We've got technology that would reduce traffic fatalities by another 50% or more, but it's the cost of implementation that is prohibitive.

Getting sued because you didn't implement bleeding edge technology? We're all in trouble.

I meant that seat belts, etc, don't prevent people from misusing cars.

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects Bushmaster. The case will go nowhere.

It's already gone somewhere. It's in the media and Bushmaster will spend money defending it.
My understanding is that they're suing for some frivolous reason not covered by the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

This is America - sue everyone... especially when your lawyers are working for the publicity.

Of course they will have to spend money on attorneys to defend agains a lawsuit that they are protected against. Lawyers are one of the reasons our country is swirling around the toilet bowl. No offense to the good lawyers intended.

I HATE lawyers. I know that's unfair. They aren't all bad. It's just that the bad ones give the other 2% a bad name.

LDB415 wrote:I HATE lawyers. I know that's unfair. They aren't all bad. It's just that the bad ones give the other 2% a bad name.

You will be looking for the best lawyer out there, should you, God forbid, have to use your weapon in self defense. lets not bash lawyers.

I caught this story on the midday news on the day it was announced. In paraphrase......The newscaster asked the lawyer for the plaintiffs, "You do realize that ownership of a weapon, be it handgun or rifle, is protected by the 2ndA, right?" His response, "So what, that doesn't matter in this case, she (the deceased teacher) doesn't care about the constitution, she would want to see changes to the law."

I see that as an insulting agenda and an absurdity to society, to hide your motivations behind someone who can't speak their mind. Worst of all, the deceased sister was sitting right there and supporting ever word that came out of his mouth, "She was might sister, not a statistic, something must change to honor her death."

I'm not sure why it bothers me so much, or even why I let it bother me so much, it's just getting harder and harder to watch TV these days with the obvious one way agenda that spews from the TV screen. While we might have more luxuries these days, I sure long for the days when personal responsibility, consequences for one's actions and grief for a lost family member stopped there. Why does modern society feel the need to find someone to blame for the degradation in our quality of life, when in fact, they're the same ones who voted to have our rights and privileges eroded away under the guise of protecting us from some obscure danger? I know, rhetorical question.....Ok, I feel better now!

The case will probably be removed to federal court where a summary judgment should be forthcoming, along with a motion for sanctions.

Chas.