Some Newtown families sue Bushmaster

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • krucam

    Ultimate Member
    This one should go nowhere.

    The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defense.

    Unsuited for hunting, home defense, huh? A kid kills his mother with one she owned and bought. The punk never bought the gun. How is Bushmaster liable for that little matter, that they didn't provide (nor did the FFL) the gun to the murderer?

    Fail...
     

    Mr H

    Banana'd
    IMO, this is solely because the legislative push from Newtown was, on balance, a failure.

    No states switched from Pro to Anti
    Three states went more Anti
    Something like five states went Anti to Pro

    OOPS!
     
    Last edited:

    Gryphon

    inveniam viam aut faciam
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 8, 2013
    6,993
    This one should go nowhere.



    Unsuited for hunting, home defense, huh? A kid kills his mother with one she owned and bought. The punk never bought the gun. How is Bushmaster liable for that little matter, that they didn't provide (nor did the FFL) the gun to the murderer?

    Fail...

    Ditto - a perfectly lawful firearm, not to mention that the weapon apparently operated as designed, so no negligence or strict liability for a defective product. What happened is tragic, but it isn't the manufacturer's fault, and sh*t like this makes me lose sympathy for the families.
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,598
    Glen Burnie
    Yeah, good luck with that one. That's like suing Ford or Chevy because some dumbass got drunk and slid into a family of 5. I mean, seriously?

    This lawsuit is for publicity only - they have no prayer of winning it in the courts.
     

    Mr H

    Banana'd
    There is more than ample precedent for this to dismissed on summary judgment.
    Going NOWHERE fast.

    When that happens, I can envision the MSM going apeshyte at how 'The system has failed here too!'

    The NRA will be declared to be in control of the Court, and gun owners will be blamed for scaring the masses into compliance.

    IMO, it's another way to destabilize the foundations.
     

    Seagrave1963

    Still learnin'
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 6, 2011
    10,003
    Eastern Shore
    Thinking they are just looking for a quick payout. Ramp up some negative publicity on a major manufacturer, then move in for some good ol' fashion, legalized extortion.
     

    wreckdiver

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 13, 2008
    2,925
    Don't forget, Bushmaster paid up after the DC sniper thing a few years ago. It seems illogical, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had to pay again.
     

    Seagrave1963

    Still learnin'
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 6, 2011
    10,003
    Eastern Shore

    sbmike

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 19, 2011
    1,651
    Almost Heaven, WV
    I've been looking for a reason to sue Bic for all my misspelled words when I was in school. Now I have it. Also going after my silverware company for making me fat.
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,598
    Glen Burnie
    Don't forget, Bushmaster paid up after the DC sniper thing a few years ago. It seems illogical, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had to pay again.
    Bushmaster did that by choice back then - they didn't have to. Also, that was 12 years ago. A lot has changed since then. I wouldn't be surprised if Bushmaster pushes the issue this time and allows it to go to court.
     

    Mr H

    Banana'd
    There are six exceptions, including lawsuits brought against a seller for "negligent entrustment," defined in the law as "the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others."

    Bushmaster can't, IMO, be held to this, as they had no way to know Lanza or her planned usage of the rifle.

    Nor should the distributor.

    The dealer would only be culpable, I think, if they knew her son was having issues, and that he would have ready, unsupervised access to it. The fact that he broke into the storage to steal it and use it seems, to me, to leave them blameless as well.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,276
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom