TexasCHLforum.com

It's all Bushmasters fault. The M4 Bushmaster I own has been a pretty lazy Law Abiding rifle. This frivolous lawsuit needs to be tossed...


The families of 10 of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre have filed a joint lawsuit against the makers of the gun that killed their children.
A lawsuit filed Monday by 10 Sandy Hook victims’ families claims Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill 26 people in five minutes without his “weapon of choice,” a Bushmaster AR-15.
“The number of lives lost in those 264 seconds was made possible” by the rifle that was “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency,” according to the lawsuit against AR-15 manufacturer Bushmaster.
The lawsuit was filed Monday morning in Connecticut superior court against Bushmaster, several other manufacturers, and Riverview Gun Sales, where Lanza’s rifle was purchased.
These defendants know that “as a result of selling AR-15s to the civilian market, individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them... Despite that knowledge, defendants continue to sell the XM15-E52 rifle to the civilian market.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bushmaster has settled lawsuits in the past and nothing leads me to believe they won't do the same in this case. It's a crying shame.

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

I'm sure the money will make them feel much better.

It's sad that people think suing someone will solve the problem. I realize everyone here understands this but it's the health system not the gun that's the problem. If they get their way we will be like England trying to ban knives! Next it will be bats then rock, then what?

RKirkwood wrote:I'm sure the money will make them feel much better.

It's sad that people think suing someone will solve the problem. I realize everyone here understands this but it's the health system not the gun that's the problem. If they get their way we will be like England trying to ban knives! Next it will be bats then rock, then what?

Next they'll make you wear a rubber helmet so you can't bang your head on the wall.

This case in not seeking any kind of justice, it is trying to push a political agenda, and create attention. They probably will see money from the freedom group in attempt to shut them up. It all seems to me like they're pushing politically... I bet they would love to use this case, if some liberal gun fearing judge decided it was bushmaster fault for making a destructive, military grade, children slaughtering, death machine, as a benchmark(?) case to use for gun control, but I doubt we'll ever see anything of it. Bunch of undereducated people thinking that making something legal, illegal, will stop something legal from being used illegally in an area where the legal item was illegal, because making things illegal is the cure for the problem obviously.

Here is the story regarding this case on CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/15/news/co ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why not sue the suspects family for raising a monster? Not as much of a reach as suing Bushmaster. If they had raised their son better, then he wouldn't have done the carnage.
I agree this is nothing but a political agenda and would not be surprised if Bloomberg is not behind it.

RPBrown wrote:Why not sue the suspects family for raising a monster? Not as much of a reach as suing Bushmaster. If they had raised their son better, then he wouldn't have done the carnage.

Mental health issues of that kind are typically nature, not nurture.

jmra wrote:Bushmaster has settled lawsuits in the past and nothing leads me to believe they won't do the same in this case. It's a crying shame.

I have a problem with their past settlements, they set a horrible precedence. I'm no super lawyer, so I can't pretend to know how all this will play out, but I wonder if their past settlements kept the case out of court and prevented actual case law? What a dangerous game to play. Sometimes you have to stand your ground, and I think Bushmaster gave too much already.

RoyGBiv wrote:

RPBrown wrote:Why not sue the suspects family for raising a monster? Not as much of a reach as suing Bushmaster. If they had raised their son better, then he wouldn't have done the carnage.

Mental health issues of that kind are typically nature, not nurture.

I should have mentioned that this comment was made sarcastically.

To be perfectly honest I doubt they intend to win this lawsuit. Instead I suspect they intend to get the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act over turned, and that is what I suspect the end game happens to be in this effort. What possible liability could Shrubmaster have in this case? The firearm was sold to a distributor (Federally Licensed), who sold it to a dealer (Federally Licensed), who sold it to the killers mother (With the approval of the FBI), who was then killed and the weapon stolen so that it could be used by the mad killer. Shrubmaster has not marketed/advertised the weapon in a manner that would attract illegal use, so they have a great defense even if the LCAA did not exist. The plaintiffs know this, their legal team knows this and had to tell them, so what is the plan? Appealing a motion is much faster than appealing a case. For the case to proceed the LCAA has to be struck down. No matter what the trial judge decides, his decision will be appealed on the motion that the LCAA does not apply in that case (by us or them), now you get the LCAA before an appellate court where case law is made. This is where they want to get a decision that they can agree with. If they can get the LCAA stricken in one circuit they can sue all the gun manufacturers out of business, or at least they hope. Fortunately, the appellate decision will also be appealed, but will the supreme court take the case, will they decide the LCAA applies or is even valid? Who knows but courts are very dangerous places to make a case because judges and juries often do things that make no sense and the plaintiffs are counting on that.

G.A. Heath wrote:To be perfectly honest I doubt they intend to win this lawsuit. Instead I suspect they intend to get the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act over turned, and that is what I suspect the end game happens to be in this effort. What possible liability could Shrubmaster have in this case? The firearm was sold to a distributor (Federally Licensed), who sold it to a dealer (Federally Licensed), who sold it to the killers mother (With the approval of the FBI), who was then killed and the weapon stolen so that it could be used by the mad killer. Shrubmaster has not marketed/advertised the weapon in a manner that would attract illegal use, so they have a great defense even if the LCAA did not exist. The plaintiffs know this, their legal team knows this and had to tell them, so what is the plan? Appealing a motion is much faster than appealing a case. For the case to proceed the LCAA has to be struck down. No matter what the trial judge decides, his decision will be appealed on the motion that the LCAA does not apply in that case (by us or them), now you get the LCAA before an appellate court where case law is made. This is where they want to get a decision that they can agree with. If they can get the LCAA stricken in one circuit they can sue all the gun manufacturers out of business, or at least they hope. Fortunately, the appellate decision will also be appealed, but will the supreme court take the case, will they decide the LCAA applies or is even valid? Who knows but courts are very dangerous places to make a case because judges and juries often do things that make no sense and the plaintiffs are counting on that.

This!

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.

Eugene Volokh's two cents on why it should get tossed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... k-murders/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

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.

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.