Lawsuit against Bushmaster allowed to proceed

[Indiana Jones]

Wait i thought they recovered 2 handguns and a shotgun from a trunk?

 

[nedsurf]

Basically, she is saying that she can hear the case because the PLCAA doesn't demand that she summarily dismiss, but PLCAA still applies. The refusal to summarily dismiss is idiotic and probably politically-driven - and will make her look extremely stupid on appeal - but she is not saying the PLCAA doesn't grant immunity in this case.

In fact, this is extremely bad news for the plaintiffs. They're not going to win. This is only driving up the legal bills for the defense, which the plaintiffs will be obligated to pay once the judge inevitably rules for the defendant due to PLCAA immunity.

I'm seeing this angle also. The judge wants it to go to trial to set herself up to pen an opinion that the defendant can be found liable under products liability, but due to the PLCAA, no remedy will be granted to those parents of the victims of murder. It demonizes the PLCAA to help set up the public opinion to repeal the law. Agreed that this is judicial misconduct.

 

[Vile Shadow]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-connecticut-shooting-idUSKCN0XB2DF

Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis declined to dismiss it, saying the gunmaker, a unit of Madison, North Carolina-based Freedom Group Inc, had not proven that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act stopped her from hearing the case.

"The Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a wrongful death action where the injury arose out of conduct by the defendants," Bellis wrote. "Any immunity that PLCAA may provide does not implicate this court's subject matter jurisdiction."

Conduct by the defendants???

WHAT "conduct by the defendants"?

It sure as hell wasn't one of Bushmaster's employees that shot that school up.

 

[adit]

Yes. But the wording here is complicated. Let me highlight the important part:

Basically, she is saying that she can hear the case because the PLCAA doesn't demand that she summarily dismiss, but PLCAA still applies. The refusal to summarily dismiss is idiotic and probably politically-driven - and will make her look extremely stupid on appeal - but she is not saying the PLCAA doesn't grant immunity in this case.

In fact, this is extremely bad news for the plaintiffs. They're not going to win. This is only driving up the legal bills for the defense, which the plaintiffs will be obligated to pay once the judge inevitably rules for the defendant due to PLCAA immunity.

OK, but who is paying for the trial costs on this frivolous lawsuit? The people.

 

[2ndMDRebel]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why saying that if candidate X wins the Republican Primary I am going to stay home and not vote is just asking for Bernie/Hillary to win and put a 5-4 progressive liberal majority on the Supreme Court which would approve wholeheartedly of gun manufacturers being held liable.

We are at the tipping point.

 

[john_bud]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why saying that if candidate X wins the Republican Primary I am going to stay home and not vote is just asking for Bernie/Hillary to win and put a 5-4 progressive liberal majority on the Supreme Court which would approve wholeheartedly of gun manufacturers being held liable.

We are at the tipping point.

"At" ??

Well past, imho!

 

[Z_Man]

so the judge hears the case, the defendant wins, and the plaintiff pays legal fees, hundreds of thousands of dollars. then waste more money appealing.... dipshits. this is why you never go full retard....

 

[Matlack]

so the judge hears the case, the defendant wins, and the plaintiff pays legal fees, hundreds of thousands of dollars. then waste more money appealing.... dipshits. this is why you never go full retard....

This is another rallying cry for the D's. Both parties are screaming about the SCOTUS open seat at the moment. This case is important to the anti2A groups. If a D wins the presidency and appoints a gun grabber from the bench and this case makes it to the SCOTUS PLCAA gets overturned as unconstitutional. If they overturn PLCAA then the limits they have on suing doctors should also get overturned. Ultimately this should cause anything creating a limit on payments to collapse and open the door for anyone to sue anything that causes them harm. So next fender bender I will be suing the person who hit me, the dealership that sold the car, the truck driver who delivered the vehicle to the dealership, the shipper who brought the car to the US, the manufacturer, and maybe even the US (or state) government for building/maintaining the road we were driving on. Ultimately that is what the D's are asking for.

Can I still sue M&M's about "melts in your mouth, not in your hand", I still remember those commercials?

 

[Brooklyn]

On what basis are liability limits unconstutional?

The claim that Congress can not limit a courts jurisdiction has merit..but it can restrict it's power to enforce..

So a law providing no remedy for a tort..will still allow for the farcical trial...but no enforcement of its holding.

Then again Congress could assign jurisdiction directly to the Federal courts.. and so on .

This transitive liability stuff it a theat to commerce and can not stand..

If nothing else the corporate revolt will do the trick..

 

[erwos]

On what basis are liability limits unconstutional?

You've brought up a very good point here. It's pretty hard to conceive of an argument for SCOTUS to intellectually justify overturning the PLCAA, even with a liberal majority. Congress has the right to regulate this stuff, and it's pretty firmly entrenched in case law. This isn't something like the 2A, where the existing jurisprudence has been hugely uneven. A ruling that Congress can't set liability limits would have immediate, massive, far-reaching effects.

 

[Jim12]

so the judge hears the case, the defendant wins, and the plaintiff pays legal fees, hundreds of thousands of dollars. then waste more money appealing.... dipshits. this is why you never go full retard....

You have a lot more confidence in that outcome than I do.

And if they lose, they'll try again, maybe in front of a different case, different judge, in different circuit, until they get the outcome they want, on appeal, and then to SCOTUS, in front of a non-Scalia Court, to have it ingrained as settled law. Or if not, the basis for political call for change.

That's how the Left has worked for 50+ years, and they've gotten control of the legal system and courts as well as the politicians (that's how they did it).

Probably not a good idea to ever predict the outcome of litigation with certainty, especially in a liberal venue. Remember O.J. Simpson?

 

[Z_Man]

You have a lot more confidence in that outcome than I do.

And if they lose, they'll try again, maybe in front of a different case, different judge, in different circuit, until they get the outcome they want, on appeal, and then to SCOTUS, in front of a non-Scalia Court, to have it ingrained as settled law. Or if not, the basis for political call for change.

That's how the Left has worked for 50+ years, and they've gotten control of the legal system and courts as well as the politicians (that's how they did it).

Probably not a good idea to ever predict the outcome of litigation with certainty, especially in a liberal venue. Remember O.J. Simpson?

well I predicted OJ would walk and I was 9 years old at the time. is it a waste of time to hear this case? absolutely. The judge isn't required to dismiss it, even if it has no merit. the left sees this as a victory, but there is no way that this will hold up. and if the plaintifs win, it won't win under appeal. you will see EVERY major company getting involved this, even companies who are publically against firearms, as it will open every company who makes anything to criminal liability for some dickweed using their product to kill someone. chainsaws, lawnmowers, cars, food items, electrical equipment.

black and decker is getting sued because a psychopath ties someone up, drops them in a tub, fills tub, plugs in black and decker toaster, and drops it in the tub. black and decker will then be liable for that persons death if this case holds up. there is only so much reason that the lefts can cause people to forget. this is well beyond that line. and if not it is time to get to the 4th box.

 

[QuebecoisWolf]

so the judge hears the case, the defendant wins, and the plaintiff pays legal fees, hundreds of thousands of dollars. then waste more money appealing.... dipshits. this is why you never go full retard....

This is anything but full retard. The ruling on the case may be a virtual foregone conclusion, but no matter what happens, it keeps "Newtown" in the public vernacular, rallies their people, brings antigun voters to polling places, helps a judge gain media attention, and when the case fails, they can crow all about how the evil NRA has stacked the judicial system and corrupted congress and allowed a corporation of death to profit from the murder of innocent children. Even if they lose, they win.

Honestly... do you think that the bosses of gun control are going to fight any less hard for their point of view than we do? We have some of our own seemingly hopeless court cases in the pipeline.

 

[zoostation]

It's clearly a violation of the Lawful Commerce Act. The judge is going off on his liberal own. That being said Bushmaster still has to pay through the nose to defend.

The bears watching though because this is exactly the kind of thing you'll see if Hillary gets elected. Only the Justice Department will be filing the suits also and not just private plaintiffs. They'll pick and choose suits to file in districts where they can get friendly judges and file there. Just wear the industry down like they did to Big Tobacco.

Oh and don't forget the activist 5-4 majority they want on SCOTUS who might just rule the Lawful Commerce Act invalid by fiat.

 

[Jim12]

well I predicted OJ would walk and I was 9 years old at the time. is it a waste of time to hear this case? absolutely. The judge isn't required to dismiss it, even if it has no merit. the left sees this as a victory, but there is no way that this will hold up. and if the plaintifs win, it won't win under appeal. you will see EVERY major company getting involved this, even companies who are publically against firearms, as it will open every company who makes anything to criminal liability for some dickweed using their product to kill someone. chainsaws, lawnmowers, cars, food items, electrical equipment.

black and decker is getting sued because a psychopath ties someone up, drops them in a tub, fills tub, plugs in black and decker toaster, and drops it in the tub. black and decker will then be liable for that persons death if this case holds up. there is only so much reason that the lefts can cause people to forget. this is well beyond that line. and if not it is time to get to the 4th box.

You don't recognize their mindset: All those other things have redeeming social value. Firearms, especially those evil black ones, and those with high capacity magazine clip round holders, don't. Period. You're not going to change their mind, and they will argue every fine distinction.

 

[ComeGet]

This is anything but full retard. The ruling on the case may be a virtual foregone conclusion, but no matter what happens, it keeps "Newtown" in the public vernacular, rallies their people, brings antigun voters to polling places, helps a judge gain media attention, and when the case fails, they can crow all about how the evil NRA has stacked the judicial system and corrupted congress and allowed a corporation of death to profit from the murder of innocent children. Even if they lose, they win.

Honestly... do you think that the bosses of gun control are going to fight any less hard for their point of view than we do? We have some of our own seemingly hopeless court cases in the pipeline.

You don't recognize their mindset: All those other things have redeeming social value. Firearms, especially those evil black ones, and those with high capacity magazine clip round holders, don't. Period. You're not going to change their mind, and they will argue every fine distinction.

You guys saved me a lot of typing.

 

[tkd4life]

So if I use either my Rock Island Arsenal 1903 or Springfield Armory M1 to commit a crime, can that victim then sue the Federal Government the same way Bushmaster is being sued?

 

[shacklefordbanks]

I read the opinion carefully and it appears that the media hype about it is way overblown. The judge did not rule on the merits of the case or even state that they had a case, but only that the motion to dismiss based on the court not having jurisdiction was wrong. That under Connecticut law, a motion to strike would have been the correct course to take. So the judge refused to dismiss solely on the grounds that they had jurisdiction. That's it.

The news makes it out like the judge ruled that Remington had already lost the case. Not even close. This is such a narrow and technical legal opinion that you get paper cuts on your fingers just reading it.

So expect a motion to strike any day.

 

[Rab1515]

So if I use either my Rock Island Arsenal 1903 or Springfield Armory M1 to commit a crime, can that victim then sue the Federal Government the same way Bushmaster is being sued?

Exhalent point.

 

[HortusQ]

forks and spoons make people fat?