This is absolutely ridiculous …
A Connecticut Judge ruled that the families of the victims in the 2012 Sandy hook massacre are allowed to sue the gun-maker who produced the rifle used in the killings.
The legal action names Remington Arms, maker of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, model XM15-E2S, as well as the distributor and seller.
Judge Rules Victims’ Families Can Argue Semi-Automatic Rifle is “Military Weapon” Should Not Have Been Sold To Civilians
To be clear, it appears as if the judge simply ruled that the victims’ families can continue their case to sue the gun-makers in court.
It does not appear that they have already done that. Or even that they will win.
From the story on sky.com, “Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said a 2005 federal law protecting gunmakers from lawsuits does not shield the companies from legal action in this case.
She ruled that lawyers for the victims’ families can still argue the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.”
Suing Gun-Makers for “Gun Violence” Makes As Much Sense As Suing Ford, Chevy or Chrysler for “Car Violence”
The whole idea is ridiculous that any company should be held liable for what the end user does with its products that they purchased.
As Bob Owens as BearingArms.com pointed out, Hillary Clinton is a big proponent of this type of legal action …
“Campaigning in South Carolina today, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued that accident victims and people who were intentionally run down in hit-and-run attacks with vehicles should be able to sue the automotive industry for damages incurred.
Clinton pointed out that almost every vehicle sold in the United States is capable of exceeding the speed limit and may be obtained by criminals second-hand, and often times illegally, to justify her position.
“So far as I know, the car industry and car dealers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate.”
Of course, that’s satire to prove the point that the entire notion of punishing a manufacturer for something the end user does with one’s products is incredibly ridiculous and that ONLY ant-gun people could get away with this.
Ridiculous. And a Dangerous Precedent …
To be VERY clear, this is not just about guns or gun manufacturers or even gun rights. As NationalInterest.org points out, if a lawsuit such as this is actually won it would set a dangerous precedent …
“Could you imagine being a business owner; selling a legal, functional product; and being sued every time an individual who buys your product uses it to commit a crime?
“Should a rope manufacturer be liable when someone is hanged by that rope? Should a knife manufacturer be liable when someone is stabbed? Could a restaurant be sued when someone eats its perfectly safe food but dies of a heart attack or diabetic shock?”
They continue, “If allowed to proceed, lawsuits such as the one in Connecticut could lead to all sorts of other outlandish claims being asserted against producers merely for selling their legal products, even though they rarely have any control over who buys their products or how people use them.”
“Could the maker of salted peanuts be sued if someone intentionally sneaks peanuts into the lunch of someone else who has a known allergy, and who dies as a result? The situations are analogous, and legally, there’s no difference.”
Let’s Hope Reason Prevails …
Because there doesn’t seem to be much common sense left in the “justice” system …
What are your thoughts? Do you think this sets a dangerous legal precedent? Just another way that anti-gun judges are twisting the law to push through their agendas?