Good news.

Supreme Court will allow Sandy Hook families to move forward in suit against gunmaker Remington
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/supreme-court-sandy-hook-remington-guns.html

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will not hear a closely watched case against gunmaker Remington, a move the company has warned could potentially increase the liability of firearm manufacturers to suits brought by victims of gun crimes.

The court’s action will allow the family members of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre to move forward with their lawsuit. The shooting left 20 children and six adults dead.

The families sued the makers of the gun that was used, an AR-15 style weapon made by Remington, in 2014, alleging that the company’s marketing of the weapon inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre.
..............................................................................................................................
Awesome. Hopefully, manufacturers of lethal, military style weapons will be held to account for putting the public's safety at risk. It should be the case that Congress ban such weapons from sale. But because the NRA has prevented this common sense measure from being enacted the courts seem to be the only recourse.

 

What is a "military style" weapon?

 

What add are they saying made someone shoot up a school? On second thought I better not watch it, I would hate to see it and then have an uncontrollable urge to shoot a bunch of innocent people.

 

An AR-15. So saith SCOTUS.

 

Wow, that's definitely cause for celebration. I'm sure the gun manufacturers hired the guy to do the shooting. What's next? We can sue Honda the next time a drunk driver runs someone over with an accord? Man oh man, the logic of democrats. Oh wait, they don't have any!

 

In its settlement with Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed the government admitted that semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not weapons of war.
The amended regulations proposed in the settlement show the government will no longer look at semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber as “military equipment” or weapons of war.
Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, but it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby. For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called “weapons of war,” and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.

The federal government now saying semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not inherently military means that they are admitting that rifles like the AR-15 are civilian in nature. This makes perfect sense, as they existed years before the military adopted the fully automatic version.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/07/23/government-admits-ar-15s-not-weapons-war/

 

The military would never use an AR-15. They are interested in capability, not that it kinda looks like a military weapon.

 

Societies have a right to take measures against public health hazards of all kinds. And to deem what is appropriate to be banned from sale and or possession when the deaths of innocent people is what is at stake. To do otherwise is illogical.

 

It was a lawful product and Remington broke no laws.

 

I guess that means that military-style weapons are not weapons of war. If they were, they would be just "military weapons"... without the "style" qualifier.

 

Following such logic, why can society not deem that anyone who has committed a violent criminal act can never be allowed back into society again, under any circumstances?

 

Next in the news, parents to start suing McDonalds for making their kids fat.

 

Since all firearms are equally lethal, and the firearm in question was legal for sale and ownership, exactly what did the firearm manufacturer in question do to make them responsible for the actions of the mass murderer in question? Especially when the firearm was not even sold to the mass murderer, but rather one of his victims from whom he stole it for the use in even more murders?

 

Therefore, military-style weapons are not military weapons.

Just like you lighting a fire "Cherokee-style" doesn't make you a Cherokee.

 

What is a "military-style" weapon? They are either used by the military or they are not. And the AR-15 is not.
They should sue GMC and Chrysler for making Jeeps and Humvees. They definitely look military and they are responsible for many time more deaths than AR-15s.

 

It will be decided by the courts and then we'll know for sure. I don't think Remington broke any laws, however we live in a litigious society and attorney's can be very crafty when it comes to this sort of thing. It'll be interesting to see what their rationale is on this case.

 

Then perhaps the best and most appropriate course of action is for the Remington manufacturing company to launch a countersuit in retaliation for various offenses, just as the hotel at the center of the Las Vegas incident did.

 

Totally insane. It is a total can of worms. It would mean any manuf could be sued if their product hurt or killed someone. Any relative of anyone could sue any car manuf if their relative was killed in a car accident.

How about suing a fork manuf for making a relative fat, and they die from heart disease????

 

I suppose we can if we assume rehabilitation is not an option and are fine with paying the cost of keeping them for life. I’d rather the alternative to that though.

 

Well, they have to satisfy the probation board that they're no longer a threat. An AR15 is always a threat.

 

Not so when you consider casualty count potential. A bolt action rifle would have a much harder time racking up the kills in a mall compared to an AR-15.

 

I suppose if the car was dangerous then that might well happen. If the car has been homologated then there wouldn't be a case. If an AR15 was made safe then the same, but you wouldn't be able to fire it.

 

Actually no, the person holding it is a threat. Statistically speaking the amount of these weapons that will ever kill someone is so close to 0% it is an insignificant value. So really there is no argument that an AR-15 is always a threat, because most of them are not.

100% of violent criminals on the other hand either have committed or will commit a violent act. And they don't need an AR-15 to do it.

 

I believe one of the main descriptive is select full and semi auto fire.. Not sure, didn't they also a have an option for a three round burst too..

Yup

 

The alternative is what presently exists, where countless career offenders are released back into society where they pose the greatest risk of harm as they are free to reoffend at their leisure. How well is that working out for everyone involved, particularly those who are murdered by the released offenders?