Families of mass shooting victims to court arguing to hold gun makers accountable

Posted by | June 19, 2016 22:00 | Filed under: Politics

Republish
Reprint


A case brought by families victimized by the Sandy Hook shooting will be in court Monday.

The judge will determine whether the case, which seeks to hold gun manufacturer Remington Arms liable for selling the weapon that Adam Lanza used in the attack, can go to trial.

The gun maker is reportedly expected to argue that they cannot be held accountable, because the manufacturer transfer and sale of the weapon, an AR-15 rifle, were done legally. The weapon is similar to the one used by the shooter who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando last weekend.

Josh Koskoff, an attorney for the families, said, “This is about whether or not it is reasonable to continue to arm citizens with military-grade assault firearms,” the Danbury News Times reported. “What this lawsuit does in part is put the gun industry on notice that when these horrific events occur, it is no longer good enough to say that they were unpreventable or unforeseen, or that the industry that makes these weapons has no role to play because it is an issue of mental health or terrorism.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

25 responses to Families of mass shooting victims to court arguing to hold gun makers accountable

  1. whatthe46 June 19th, 2016 at 22:16

    while you’re at it, add the RWNJ’s and the NRA responsible as well.

  2. William June 19th, 2016 at 23:10

    I blame Obama

  3. Kick Frenzy June 20th, 2016 at 04:08

    They should not be held accountable for what is done with a legal product they produce.
    I think they should just refuse to make the guns.
    Obviously that’s not likely, but it’d be nice.

    I’m all for making them illegal for civilian use.
    But it could also extend to making it illegal to produce, unless under government contract or something.

    It’s horrible what happened…
    But no, the manufacturer is not responsible.

    • bpollen June 20th, 2016 at 04:39

      Asbestos was perfectly legal to sell and use. Yet there have been massive payouts that certainly would indicate that legal and culpable ain’t the same thing. Especially when adverse affects are known, and predictable in the aggregate. Mesothelioma sucks. It is very predictable that allowing powerful weapons to be acquired by any yahoo that wants one leads to adverse affects – death is a BIG adverse affect.

    • clemans June 20th, 2016 at 07:01

      unless they produce a weapon that has an illegal component to it, or breaks some other law, I do not see how they can be held accountable. The victims should sue the American public and congress for failing to make laws that actually might help save lives…..but that is not going to happen…the law suit I mean.

  4. Budda June 20th, 2016 at 07:09

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

    Good luck with the law suit.

    • Suzanne McFly June 20th, 2016 at 08:09

      I watched a 60 Minute story about the “Smart Gun” technology and why it isn’t used. Supposedly, Remington signed a promise with President Bill Clinton saying they would work to create one of these guns as long as the are protected by law suits, they are protected but now they refuse to make the smart gun.

      • amongoose June 20th, 2016 at 08:35

        Smart gun tech is a ways off yet. It seems to have problems reading biometrics through obstructions like sweat mud and blood.
        .
        It’s use would actually require more firearms to be sold. Everyone would have to have their own weapon(s). If a burglar came in, shot the one who could fire the gun you would be done for, unless you had your own.

        • Obewon June 20th, 2016 at 08:57

          How do you know? The popular prototypes are two years old:

          Although a German company tried to introduce a smart gun into the United States two years ago, most of the technology is at the prototype stage. The guns are designed to function only when used by those authorized to fire them. Manufacturers are pursuing a variety of authorization methods, such as fingerprints and wireless chips connected to rings or watches. Via https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-wants-to-make-it-easier-for-law-enforcement-to-use-smart-guns/2016/04/29/88a7183a-0e1e-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html

          Armed babies and toddlers of U.S. gun owners shoot more than terrorists. Only in America: Just 22% own guns killing 33,000 annually with 100,000 shot in the USA each year. Gun violence cost taxpayers $230 B+ in 2010 alone! Mandating expensive gun insurance reduces many of the 2/3 of U.S. homicides perpetuated by USA’s mere 22% of population who are gun owners.

          • amongoose June 20th, 2016 at 09:08

            Most murders are not done with legally purchased guns.

            • Obewon June 20th, 2016 at 09:12

              ‘2/3 of U.S. Homicides are caused by gun owners’-FBI.

              • amongoose June 20th, 2016 at 09:15

                Find a way to stop those in like Chicago who will shoot almost as many each week as the Orlando shooter did.
                Anyone who has a weapon is a “gun owner”.

                • Obewon June 20th, 2016 at 09:27

                  FNC (R)acists mention of “Chicago” ignores that Illinois ranks 33rd in gun deaths.

                  Florida stopped releasing Fl. gun violence data because the Florida tourist bureau won’t approve data proving Fl. ranks in the top 5 gun death states with Alabama, Louisiana, etc.

                  • amongoose June 20th, 2016 at 09:57

                    So how do you propose to get all those guns out of the hands of those that would use them violently, and won’t obey a gun law to begin with?

                    • Jodie June 20th, 2016 at 10:01

                      If England and Australia can ban guns entirely, surely the US can find something we can do to reduce gun violence. I’m fine with rational people owning guns, but come on…

                    • amongoose June 21st, 2016 at 09:50

                      Should someone with a history like his be allowed a gun?
                      Aw Hell No.

                      The problem is in coming up with a way to make sure they are disallowed guns, but done in a judicial setting with an appellate process and the ability to have rights restored, judicially.
                      Someone however has to bring the information forward. And there need to be penalties for abuse of it, like Swatting.

                      The Orlando shooter had plenty of red flags, just like the San Bernadino two, both were not reported because they were afraid to do it because of PC backlash.

                      This happened 40 miles from me, our local papers have a lot more than the MSM.

                      This nutcase had a long history of violent behavior, in addition to spousal abuse, he had threatened neighbors over pork touching his hamburger. Was kicked out of a corrections officers course after threatening to bring a gun to class. His co-workers reported his rants, and a gun shop called the FBI about his wanting class 3 body armor, and bulk (1000 rds) ammunition.

                      The FBI never got back in touch with them. His employer a government contractor, took no action.

                    • Jodie June 21st, 2016 at 10:03

                      I agree…People like him don’t need guns. I’m not meaning Muslims in general, but people prone to violence…No matter what color you are. But, there’s got to be a way that law-abiding citizens can keep the right to own guns AND reduce gun violence. A friend of mine from Sweden said you have to have special permits or something to own guns over there. You can’t just go buy one just because. I don’t see why we couldn’t have mental health assessments done every few years to obtain a license that has to be renewed to own a gun.

                    • Obewon June 20th, 2016 at 10:20

                      “Well regulated”-2 A Paranoid gun nuts are USA’s biggest problem e.g. U.S. Toddlers shoot more than terrorists. Mandatory gun owner insurance solves this. Gun or ammo without insurance? Go directly to jail and you’re now barred for life from possessing guns or ammo.

                    • amongoose June 21st, 2016 at 09:46

                      These guys doing the shooting are not going to buy gun insurance.

                      So if you are OK with requiring purchase of insurance to exercise a right, wouldn’t a poll tax be legal as well? Both are government requiring you to pay to exercise a constitutional right.

                      Wouldn’t someone not being able to afford insurance have their rights curtailed by the expense, just as black voters with the poll tax?
                      Besides you can sue now for wrongful death, I think shooting someone qualifies for that.

                      Whether you use a 2 or 3 day weekend, that’s a lot of people shot.
                      And when you project those numbers over a year, they are massive.
                      Chicago is on pace to have it’s deadliest year in 21 years I saw. Why don’t we address the biggest, and longest running threat first?

                      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-12-dead-at-least-41-hurt-in-weekend-shootings-20160620-story.html
                      12 dead, at least 41 hurt in Father’s Day weekend shootings

                  • Jodie June 20th, 2016 at 10:02

                    Republicans don’t want to see and understand this. They think MORE guns will solve our problems.

                • Obewon June 20th, 2016 at 09:41

                  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms.

  5. Jodie June 20th, 2016 at 09:58

    It’s the manufacturer and the government, really. The government should get off it’s butt and do something about all the gun violence. It’s sad that people are ok with registering vehicles and having to get a license to drive, but the moment you mention ONE little measure to try to prevent gun violence…People go nuts. Gun nuts are quick to say that criminals don’t follow laws. No, obviously they don’t…Should we legalize rape and murder simply because 100% of people won’t stop doing it? People still sell hard drugs, like cocaine and meth. Should we not bother to try to keep that off our streets?

  6. oldfart June 21st, 2016 at 10:30

    NRA, money, gun and ammo manufacturers, money, state and federal lawmakers, money,
    judicial system, money, insurance regulations, money,
    gunowners, gun stores, gunshows, money, money, money.
    IMO, the problem and solution is obvious.
    Create a brand new “Department of Irresponsible Gun Owners” in our federal government…
    And tax the SH*T out of EVERY last one of them…

Leave a Reply