Judge dismisses Sandy Hook lawsuit against Remington

[RamRoddoc]

http://www.guns.com/2016/10/14/judge-dismisses-sandy-hook-lawsuit-against-remington/

Perhaps they will have better luck suing Chevy because he drove their product to the school or some drunk used their product to commit vehicular homicide...

 

[Poppa Mike]

!!!

 

[spencer60]

They don't mention if the Sandy Hook families will get stuck with the legal bill like Brady Center did to some other folks a year or so ago...

 

[RamRoddoc]

They don't mention if the Sandy Hook families will get stuck with the legal bill like Brady Center did to some other folks a year or so ago...

No they won't unless they attempt to spin it to serve their agenda.

The last case I heard of was the Colorado theater shooting families who attempted to sue two legal ammo dealers who sold ammo to a non-prohibited, legal to own firearm and legal to have ammo citizen who had yet committed a crime.

It was pushed by the Brady Bunch:


http://www.guns.com/2015/04/23/aurora-theater-victims-family-may-owe-280000-in-lucky-gunner-lawsuit/

The Brady Campaign declined Guns.com’s request for comment about paying court costs and the dismissal.

If these mindless marmosets achieve their goals and set legal precedent, if a business sells an axe that some nut job whacks a family to death with not only is the axe maker at fault but the store that sold it to him are liable. In-freaking-sane!

Colorado has a patch work of laws that allow municipalities to "make their own law" and Aurora embraced this law allowing Century 16 multiplex, Cinemark Theater to create a "legal" gun free zone. If discovered with a permit carrying in the theater, arrest, incarceration and loss of right to carry would be risked.

The families sued for the theater not having enough security and a supposedly faulty emergency exit alarm. They failed to make their case and were also on the hook for legal fees.


Now if a permit holder disarmed by company policy backed by the full weight of law was injured or killed and a lawsuit was set into place to hold the company liable then I think a much better chance of assigning a measure of liability would be made.

Until the we hold these folks to a measure of responsibility this will continue. States are beginning to enact laws that do such.


And the only issue I have is when does the state bear the same responsibility? I know small bites and we will get there.

http://deadline.com/2016/06/cinemar...ting-legal-fees-dark-knight-rises-1201781674/

 

[TapcoFan]

Until the we hold these folks to a measure of responsibility this will continue. States are beginning to enact laws that do such.
And the only issue I have is when does the state bear the same responsibility? I know small bites and we will get there.

The state has far greater immunity than private parties, part of the reason being that state officials have to face re-election. Additionally, the court would be loathe to set precedent that would unleash an avalanche of liability simply because the state governs so many more people.

 

[RamRoddoc]

The state has far greater immunity than private parties, part of the reason being that state officials have to face re-election. Additionally, the court would be loathe to set precedent that would unleash an avalanche of liability simply because the state governs so many more people.

The citizen is ultimately responsible for their action or inaction and have "ALL RIGHTS" bestowed upon them, unless specifically denied by the state/fed.

If states stay out of it and abide by the dang constitution, the one they swore an oath on, this would not be a discussion. It would be between two non-government parties.

Ah but the state does feel compelled to be involved and as such bears the responsibility of that decision when they decide to disarm the citizen for the promise of "public safety".

If they cross that bridge then they bear a measure of the responsibility of such a decision. Or we have grown a government free of accountability, not that has become a contentious issue of late...

 

[TapcoFan]

The citizen is ultimately responsible for their action or inaction and have "ALL RIGHTS" bestowed upon them, unless specifically denied by the state/fed.

If states stay out of it and abide by the dang constitution, the one they swore an oath on, this would not be a discussion. It would be between two non-government parties.

Ah but the state does feel compelled to be involved and as such bears the responsibility of that decision when they decide to disarm the citizen for the promise of "public safety".

If they cross that bridge then they bear a measure of the responsibility of such a decision. Or we have grown a government free of accountability, not that has become a contentious issue of late...

Accountability lies in the hands of the electorate. The problem is that much of the electorate does not understand their rights nor cares to preserve their rights. This is why it's so important to get out there and vote, not just for the national, but at the state level as well.

 

[spencer60]

No they won't unless they attempt to spin it to serve their agenda.

The last case I heard of was the Colorado theater shooting families who attempted to sue two legal ammo dealers who sold ammo to a non-prohibited, legal to own firearm and legal to have ammo citizen who had yet committed a crime.

It was pushed by the Brady Bunch:...

That was the one...

 

[RamRoddoc]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...makers-criminals-actions-sand-hook-dismissed/

After the ruling Josh Koskoff was quoted as saying he intends to appeal the decision.

“While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision, this is not the end of the fight. We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening.”

 

[TapcoFan]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...makers-criminals-actions-sand-hook-dismissed/

After the ruling Josh Koskoff was quoted as saying he intends to appeal the decision.

I can only imagine that he's some kind of cause lawyer, although it doesn't really look like it from his firm's web site. It's possible that someone else is bankrolling him, some kind of Brady Foundation/Bloomberg group. If anything, it puts more favorable case law on the books at this point. Koskoff did a good job keeping the case in state court and out of Federal court, but not sure what there is to gain from pursuing this if he's on contingency.