Newtown Families Sue Gun Manufacturer
Families of nine people killed at Sandy Hook High School are suing the maker of the gun used in the attack.
Click here for reuse options!While the AR-15 assault weapon used in the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School was legally sold in Connecticut, the lawsuit contends that the weapon should not have been available to 20-year-old gunman Adam Lanza. The AR-15 is manufactured by Bushmaster, a privately held company based in Windham, Maine.
Lanza shot dead 20 first-graders and six educators in the Dec. 14, 2012, attack, which stands as one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The massacre sparked a fresh debate on gun rights, which are protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible,” Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. “It’s negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public.”
The lawsuit, filed in Connecticut Superior Court in Bridgeport by the families of nine of the people killed in the attack and a 10th person who was wounded, seeks unspecified monetary damages.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
54 responses to Newtown Families Sue Gun Manufacturer
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 20:13
I wonder why it took so long for them to get to this suit?
BTW-Alan/Anomaly the pic is from the other story about the murdering Marine.
Hirightnow December 15th, 2014 at 20:17
Beat me to it (pic).
And yeah…why the wait?
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 21:20
I just learned that the 2005 law that W, the war criminal, signed to prevent this kind of suit took a lot of research to find a way through the NRA built law protecting gun manufacturers.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bush-signed-2005-law-protecting-gun-m
Wayout December 15th, 2014 at 22:48
The law was in response to the tactics of the anti-firearms ownership crowd, mainly big city Democrat Mayors. It is a good law that stopped such madness, yet still would hold gun makers responsible for manufacturing defects.
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 22:58
Uhh, no. It specifically states otherwise. But, you keep trying.
Dwendt44 December 16th, 2014 at 12:39
And, like many laws, there are ways around and through it given a cleaver lawyer, which they seem to have.
Of course, with the courts, you never know.
However, Justice Scalia, no wild eyed liberal, says there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids reasonable gun control laws.
tiredoftea December 16th, 2014 at 16:32
Yeah, their argument in this lawsuit will be interesting to hear. The gun fetishists conveniently forget that Scalia did write that in the D.C. case.
burqa December 15th, 2014 at 20:39
THEY KILLED HER/HIM TWICE, AND IN TIME ZONES EXACTLY OPPOSITE EACH OTHER ON THE GLOBE!
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 21:13
I wonder why it took so long for them to get to this suit?
BTW-Alan/Anomaly the pic is from the other story about the murdering Marine.
Hirightnow December 15th, 2014 at 21:17
Beat me to it (pic).
And yeah…why the wait?
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 22:20
I just learned that the 2005 law that W, the war criminal, signed to prevent this kind of suit took a lot of research to find a way through the NRA built law protecting gun manufacturers.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bush-signed-2005-law-protecting-gun-m
Wayout December 15th, 2014 at 23:48
The law was in response to the tactics of the anti-firearms ownership crowd, mainly big city Democrat Mayors. It is a good law that stopped such madness, yet still would hold gun makers responsible for manufacturing defects.
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 23:58
Uhh, no. It specifically states otherwise. But, you keep trying.
Dwendt44 December 16th, 2014 at 13:39
And, like many laws, there are ways around and through it given a cleaver lawyer, which they seem to have.
Of course, with the courts, you never know.
However, Justice Scalia, no wild eyed liberal, says there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids reasonable gun control laws.
tiredoftea December 16th, 2014 at 17:32
Yeah, their argument in this lawsuit will be interesting to hear. The gun fetishists conveniently forget that Scalia did write that in the D.C. case.
burqa December 15th, 2014 at 21:39
THEY KILLED HER/HIM TWICE, AND IN TIME ZONES EXACTLY OPPOSITE EACH OTHER ON THE GLOBE!
burqa December 15th, 2014 at 20:24
Wait a minute!
The accompanying picture is the same one in the story about the marine who killed a she who used to be a he prostitute in the Philippines!
Well, I’m outraged anyway.
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 20:25
But, no fish sticks?
burqa December 15th, 2014 at 20:37
Yeah, they’re defrosting right now.
Gonna have some barbecue-flavored Bush’s baked beans for a side dish.
Dessert will be a little somethin’-somethin’ courtesy of Little Debbie.
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 20:56
You epicurean, you!
William December 16th, 2014 at 01:23
I never saw a fish shaped like that.
burqa December 15th, 2014 at 21:24
Wait a minute!
The accompanying picture is the same one in the story about the marine who killed a she who used to be a he prostitute in the Philippines!
Well, I’m outraged anyway.
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 21:25
But, no fish sticks?
burqa December 15th, 2014 at 21:37
Yeah, they’re defrosting right now.
Gonna have some barbecue-flavored Bush’s baked beans for a side dish.
Dessert will be a little somethin’-somethin’ courtesy of Little Debbie.
tiredoftea December 15th, 2014 at 21:56
You epicurean, you!
William December 16th, 2014 at 02:23
I never saw a fish shaped like that.
Robert M. Snyder December 15th, 2014 at 22:25
“the lawsuit contends that the weapon should not have been available to 20-year-old gunman Adam Lanza”
My attorney has just filed a class action suit against GM, Ford, Toyota, and all other car manufacturers on behalf of all past victims of DUI car crashes. My lawsuit contends that automobiles should not be available to people who are intoxicated. I think we can all agree that any carmaker who allows their product to fall into the hands of an intoxicated driver is criminally negligent. With luck, we can put all carmakers out of business and finally put an end to these deadly car crashes that result in 30,000 tragic deaths per year.
jasperjava December 16th, 2014 at 08:01
When used according to its purpose, a car gets you from point A to point B.
A gun is a machine designed to tear holes into living flesh with the express purpose to kill or injure.
You can’t fault a car manufacturer for those who use their product carelessly or wilfully against its purpose.
You can and should fault gun manufacturers, because their product’s only purpose is to maim or snuff out life. They designed these things knowing that using them according to manufacturer’s specifications is necessarily deadly. They are complicit.
Robert M. Snyder December 16th, 2014 at 10:04
Please explain how the manufacturer of ANY product can be expected to know what happens to their products after the point of sale. If anyone should be held responsible, it would be Adam Lanza’s mother. She knew that he was mentally unstable and she knew that he possessed firearms. But the first question any attorney would ask is “Who has money?”. It’s not worth suing the mother, because she doesn’t have any money. So instead the attorneys will attempt to convince a jury that the gun manufacturer was negligent because it did not keep its product out of Adam Lanza’s hands. So if I were on the jury, my question would be “How in the hell is the manufacturer supposed to know when one of its products falls into the hands of someone who is not mentally fit to use it?”. And if such technology exists (NSA?), then why don’t we expect car manufacturers to use the same technology to keep cars out of the hands of intoxicated drivers? The fact is that no such technology exists, and if it did the privacy advocates would be crying bloody murder.
Dwendt44 December 16th, 2014 at 12:36
But the company is making a military grade weapon available to the general public and for a profit. An AR-15 serves no other purpose. It’s not very good for hunting, and there are better choices for target shooting. It’s sold on it’s looks and aggressive styling, and the fact that it is a military grade weapon.
Robert M. Snyder December 16th, 2014 at 16:47
In order to make a case that an AR-15 rifle makes a difference, you would have to show how other types of guns (hunting rifles, pistols, shotguns) would have been less lethal in the close-range school setting.
At close range, a 12 gauge shotgun is probably more lethal. It will basically turn flesh into hamburger. There is basically no way to repair the damage caused by a shotgun shell to the abdomen.
Adam Lanza killed a lot of people, but he had plenty of time. He probably could have done it with a shotgun, especially if he used an 8-shell magazine. He certainly could have done it with an ordinary hunting rifle or pistol. So the fact that he used an AR-15 is simply not relevant. You’re basically asking people to believe that, absent an AR-15, he would not have committed the same acts.
Robert M. Snyder December 16th, 2014 at 10:20
“A gun is a machine designed to tear holes into living flesh with the express purpose to kill or injure….You can and should fault gun manufacturers, because their product’s only purpose is to maim or snuff out life. They designed these things knowing that using them according to manufacturer’s specifications is necessarily deadly.”
The same can be said of military drones.
When our Nobel peace prize-winning president authorizes a drone strike that results in the deaths of innocent civilians, should the families be able to sue the drone manufacturers?
Pistol-Packing December 16th, 2014 at 12:01
No, you cant fault them. That same gun you say that is made to snuff out life, is also made to protect life. A gun does not know the difference. it is only a tool in the hands of the person who will use it.
Robert M. Snyder December 15th, 2014 at 23:25
“the lawsuit contends that the weapon should not have been available to 20-year-old gunman Adam Lanza”
My attorney has just filed a class action suit against GM, Ford, Toyota, and all other car manufacturers on behalf of all past victims of DUI car crashes. My lawsuit contends that automobiles should not be available to people who are intoxicated. I think we can all agree that any carmaker who allows their product to fall into the hands of an intoxicated driver is criminally negligent. With luck, we can put all carmakers out of business and finally put an end to these deadly car crashes that result in 30,000 tragic deaths per year.
jasperjava December 16th, 2014 at 09:01
When used according to its purpose, a car gets you from point A to point B.
A gun is a machine designed to tear holes into living flesh with the express purpose to kill or injure.
You can’t fault a car manufacturer for those who use their product carelessly or wilfully against its purpose.
You can and should fault gun manufacturers, because their product’s only purpose is to maim or snuff out life. They designed these things knowing that using them according to manufacturer’s specifications is necessarily deadly. They are complicit.
Robert M. Snyder December 16th, 2014 at 11:04
Please explain how the manufacturer of ANY product can be expected to know what happens to their products after the point of sale. If anyone should be held responsible, it would be Adam Lanza’s mother. She knew that he was mentally unstable and she knew that he possessed firearms. But the first question any attorney would ask is “Who has money?”. It’s not worth suing the mother, because she doesn’t have any money. So instead the attorneys will attempt to convince a jury that the gun manufacturer was negligent because it did not keep its product out of Adam Lanza’s hands. So if I were on the jury, my question would be “How in the hell is the manufacturer supposed to know when one of its products falls into the hands of someone who is not mentally fit to use it?”. And if such technology exists (NSA?), then why don’t we expect car manufacturers to use the same technology to keep cars out of the hands of intoxicated drivers? The fact is that no such technology exists, and if it did the privacy advocates would be crying bloody murder.
Dwendt44 December 16th, 2014 at 13:36
But the company is making a military grade weapon available to the general public and for a profit. An AR-15 serves no other purpose. It’s not very good for hunting, and there are better choices for target shooting. It’s sold on it’s looks and aggressive styling, and the fact that it is a military grade weapon.
Robert M. Snyder December 16th, 2014 at 17:47
In order to make a case that an AR-15 rifle makes a difference, you would have to show how other types of guns (hunting rifles, pistols, shotguns) would have been less lethal in the close-range school setting.
At close range, a 12 gauge shotgun is probably more lethal. It will basically turn flesh into hamburger. There is basically no way to repair the damage caused by a shotgun shell to the abdomen.
Adam Lanza killed a lot of people, but he had plenty of time. He probably could have done it with a shotgun, especially if he used an 8-shell magazine. He certainly could have done it with an ordinary hunting rifle or pistol. So the fact that he used an AR-15 is simply not relevant. You’re basically asking people to believe that, absent an AR-15, he would not have committed the same acts.
Robert M. Snyder December 16th, 2014 at 11:20
“A gun is a machine designed to tear holes into living flesh with the express purpose to kill or injure….You can and should fault gun manufacturers, because their product’s only purpose is to maim or snuff out life. They designed these things knowing that using them according to manufacturer’s specifications is necessarily deadly.”
The same can be said of military drones.
When our Nobel peace prize-winning president authorizes a drone strike that results in the deaths of innocent civilians, should the families be able to sue the drone manufacturers?
Pistol-Packing December 16th, 2014 at 13:01
No, you cant fault them. That same gun you say that is made to snuff out life, is also made to protect life. A gun does not know the difference. it is only a tool in the hands of the person who will use it.
Wayout December 15th, 2014 at 22:41
The only lawsuit I can see is against the estate of that dumb mother who allowed her mental defective son to have access to that weapon. She is the irresponsible party here, not the gun manufacturer or the dealer.
OldLefty December 16th, 2014 at 06:27
That’s why one should have to carry liability insurance to cover damage done by one’s gun, since gun violence has cost Americans
$174 billion in 2010.
She would have been considered too much of a risk.
Let the market sort it out.
Robert M. Snyder December 16th, 2014 at 11:53
I haven’t heard the counterarguments, but at first glance that actually seems like a pretty good idea. As a conservative, I would have no problem with that, assuming that it works the same way as auto liability coverage.
Wayout December 15th, 2014 at 23:41
The only lawsuit I can see is against the estate of that dumb mother who allowed her mental defective son to have access to that weapon. She is the irresponsible party here, not the gun manufacturer or the dealer.
OldLefty December 16th, 2014 at 07:27
That’s why one should have to carry liability insurance to cover damage done by one’s gun, since gun violence has cost Americans
$174 billion in 2010.
She would have been considered too much of a risk.
Let the market sort it out.
Robert M. Snyder December 16th, 2014 at 12:53
I haven’t heard the counterarguments, but at first glance that actually seems like a pretty good idea. As a conservative, I would have no problem with that, assuming that it works the same way as auto liability coverage.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 16th, 2014 at 07:35
This lawsuit will go nowhere. DOA for the most part.
Nice political play though.
booker25 December 16th, 2014 at 09:11
I think you are wrong, this lawsuit may be a game changer, about time.
Pistol-Packing December 16th, 2014 at 11:56
Nahhhh, They sold a legal product. And with AR’s falling into the “weapons in common use”, Bushmaster did nothing illegal. Nor did the company that sold the product to Lanza’s Mom.
Unfortunately, the lawsuit will not overcome that. so realistically, nothing more then political grandstanding. But otherwise a big waste of time and money.
Bunya December 16th, 2014 at 14:18
“This lawsuit will go nowhere.”
You’re probably right – and the senseless killing will continue, ’cause that’s how we roll here in ‘murica!
Pistol-Packing December 16th, 2014 at 08:35
This lawsuit will go nowhere. DOA for the most part.
Nice political play though.
Böcker December 16th, 2014 at 10:11
I think you are wrong, this lawsuit may be a game changer, about time.
Pistol-Packing December 16th, 2014 at 12:56
Nahhhh, They sold a legal product. And with AR’s falling into the “weapons in common use”, Bushmaster did nothing illegal. Nor did the company that sold the product to Lanza’s Mom.
Unfortunately, the lawsuit will not overcome that. so realistically, nothing more then political grandstanding. But otherwise a big waste of time and money.
Bunya December 16th, 2014 at 15:18
“This lawsuit will go nowhere.”
You’re probably right – and the senseless killing will continue, ’cause that’s how we roll here in ‘murica!