The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Here in Texas at least, when being sued, you usually have to answer the suit and one way to answer is a general denial. The general denial usually makes the plaintiff have to prove each part of their case and it can also say that you want the plaintiff to cover all of your legal costs if the judge rules in your favor. Im sure the process is somehow similar there as well.Pariah3j wrote:Actually I believe the defendant can counter-sue for legal costs (IANAL so I might be mistaken here). Not sure how many do this, but would raise the stakes if more would for frivolous lawsuits.
So can we sue Chrysler if a Jeep is involved in an accident?aero10 wrote: The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.
Yup you actually can if you can prove that the jeep was somehow defective not because of normal wear and tear but because a mistake made during production. Its not rare for vehicle manufacturers to do recalls because of something defective in their vehicles.The Marshal wrote:So can we sue Chrysler if a Jeep is involved in an accident?aero10 wrote: The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.
In my case they should have known that I'm a terrible driver and not sold me a vehicle (Jeep) that was designed for the military.The Marshal wrote:So can we sue Chrysler if a Jeep is involved in an accident?aero10 wrote: The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.
ScottDLS wrote:In my case they should have known that I'm a terrible driver and not sold me a vehicle (Jeep) that was designed for the military.The Marshal wrote:So can we sue Chrysler if a Jeep is involved in an accident?aero10 wrote: The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.
They should of done driving record background check on you before selling it. Damn those car sale loop holes.Yes, they did not sell it directly to the public, but by selling it to the distributor, they made it available to the public. Manufactures don't sell military weapons to a distributor; they sell direct to the DoD. In this argument, the distributor would be the public. A manufacturer cannot sell a tank, for instance, to a distributor.Pariah3j wrote: I know what they are claiming, but once again the Manufacturer didn't make it available to the public, it sold it to distributors who then sold it to gun stores who sold it to the public.
A manufacturer can sell a tank to a Type 9 FFL Dealer, who can then sell it to an individual. Good luck finding one that will do it, but it is technically possible.aero10 wrote:Yes, they did not sell it directly to the public, but by selling it to the distributor, they made it available to the public. Manufactures don't sell military weapons to a distributor; they sell direct to the DoD. In this argument, the distributor would be the public. A manufacturer cannot sell a tank, for instance, to a distributor.Pariah3j wrote: I know what they are claiming, but once again the Manufacturer didn't make it available to the public, it sold it to distributors who then sold it to gun stores who sold it to the public.
I don't think they'll win (I certainly hope they don't).
I dont think so either but if they do, everyone who has been shot or their families is gonna sue next.aero10 wrote:Yes, they did not sell it directly to the public, but by selling it to the distributor, they made it available to the public. Manufactures don't sell military weapons to a distributor; they sell direct to the DoD. In this argument, the distributor would be the public. A manufacturer cannot sell a tank, for instance, to a distributor.Pariah3j wrote: I know what they are claiming, but once again the Manufacturer didn't make it available to the public, it sold it to distributors who then sold it to gun stores who sold it to the public.
I don't think they'll win (I certainly hope they don't).
This whole thing is a blivet (with the meaning of the World War II military term) and will go nowhere.aero10 wrote:"Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians."C-dub wrote:Why would this judge allow this to continue and put the families through this when they're going to loose? Bushmaster is no more responsible for this that Ford is responsible for what the Affluenza Moron did.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/15/ju ... cmp=hplnws
They're letting them argue the gun shouldn't be sold in the first place. Completely bogus, but it's similar to Texas law that while you have criminal/civil immunity you can still be sued.
“should not” is a subjective term and depends to a great extent upon the situation and who you ask. The ATF and Legislative branch of the government make the decisions as to what weapons should and should not be sold to civilians."Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians."