Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

[PNWest]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

This is great news. Republicans claim that they want everyone to be treated equally. They don't. They want special protections for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers.

If you are hurt in a car accident you can sue the car company. A jury of your peers will decide if the car company was negligent or if the driver of the car is wholly responsible. That's fair.

A jury should be able to decide the same things when a gun is involved.

Republicans don't like that idea. Why do republicans hate the idea of a jury deciding right and wrong?

 

[NinaS]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

This is great news. Republicans claim that they want everyone to be treated equally. They don't. They want special protections for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers.

If you are hurt in a car accident you can sue the car company. A jury of your peers will decide if the car company was negligent or if the driver of the car is wholly responsible. That's fair.

A jury should be able to decide the same things when a gun is involved.

Republicans don't like that idea. Why do republicans hate the idea of a jury deciding right and wrong?

I'm waiting for @Queen Titania to reply in this thread. She says that whole Sandy Hook thing was just a conspiracy theory. No dead children at Sandy Hook.

 

[PNWest]

I'm waiting for @Queen Titania to reply in this thread. She says that whole Sandy Hook thing was just a conspiracy theory. No dead children at Sandy Hook.

Queen T is one of the very few conservatives with any integrity. The rest claim that I am not worth their time yet follow me around like little puppies craving attention. Queen T either has me on ignore or has the discipline to refrain from posting senseless conservative screeches.

Hopefully these poor families will get some relief in court.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

This is great news. Republicans claim that they want everyone to be treated equally. They don't. They want special protections for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers.

If you are hurt in a car accident you can sue the car company. A jury of your peers will decide if the car company was negligent or if the driver of the car is wholly responsible. That's fair.

A jury should be able to decide the same things when a gun is involved.

Republicans don't like that idea. Why do republicans hate the idea of a jury deciding right and wrong?

Funny stuff. You can sue a car manufacturer if a defect in the car can be proven. Going down the road you rabid anti- gun nuts want to go, I can sue Ford if a drunk hits me if he's driving a Ford.

I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference.

 

[PhilFish]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

This is great news. Republicans claim that they want everyone to be treated equally. They don't. They want special protections for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers.

If you are hurt in a car accident you can sue the car company. A jury of your peers will decide if the car company was negligent or if the driver of the car is wholly responsible. That's fair.

A jury should be able to decide the same things when a gun is involved.

Republicans don't like that idea. Why do republicans hate the idea of a jury deciding right and wrong?

I think it's good progress. Hopefully it will open the door to levying culpability to everyone along the way.. including doctors who didn't take note of mental instability and report, medications that failed, teachers that didn't report behavior laws that weren't enforced, etc....

 

[PNWest]

I think it's good progress. Hopefully it will open the door to levying culpability to everyone along the way.. including doctors who didn't take note of mental instability and report, medications that failed, teachers that didn't report behavior laws that weren't enforced, etc....

The difference is that the parents CAN sue the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies, the teachers and everyone else. Only the gun and ammo companies have special protections under republican passed laws.

 

[PhilFish]

The difference is that the parents CAN sue the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies, the teachers and everyone else. Only the gun and ammo companies have special protections under republican passed laws.

I'm with you. I just wanna be sure we get em all.

 

[Dawg]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

This is great news. Republicans claim that they want everyone to be treated equally. They don't. They want special protections for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers.

If you are hurt in a car accident you can sue the car company. A jury of your peers will decide if the car company was negligent or if the driver of the car is wholly responsible. That's fair.

A jury should be able to decide the same things when a gun is involved.

Republicans don't like that idea. Why do republicans hate the idea of a jury deciding right and wrong?

So why do drivers need insurance?

He who laughs first laughs last..........

Next thing you know Software Programmers can have the same day in court when planes crash, self-driving cars kill.

Hell, smash a finger off with a hammer, sue Plum.......

All manufacturers better close their door..........

 

[Dawg]

I think it's good progress. Hopefully it will open the door to levying culpability to everyone along the way.. including doctors who didn't take note of mental instability and report, medications that failed, teachers that didn't report behavior laws that weren't enforced, etc....

What a dream world it will be with no Doctors!
Doctors kill more people than guns/cars/plane crashes put together.

 

[Dawg]

Queen T is one of the very few conservatives with any integrity. The rest claim that I am not worth their time yet follow me around like little puppies craving attention. Queen T either has me on ignore or has the discipline to refrain from posting senseless conservative screeches.

Hopefully these poor families will get some relief in court.

It must be a problem getting your head through a 3'0 door, you and Nina make a good pair by not wanting conservatives posting to you, no problem.

 

[PNWest]

What a dream world it will be with no Doctors!
Doctors kill more people than guns/cars/plane crashes put together.

That sure a hell didn't stop you from hobblin' over to the hospital to get a knee replacement though did it? Why didn't you get your car mechanic to do the job since he causes fewer deaths than the doctors who replaced your knee?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Funny stuff. You can sue a car manufacturer if a defect in the car can be proven. Going down the road you rabid anti- gun nuts want to go, I can sue Ford if a drunk hits me if he's driving a Ford.

I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference.

If gun manufacturers have defenses under the laws that apply to all other products, so be it. They can try to convince a jury. But the issue here was the special immunity given by Congress to the gun industry. There’s no reason they should have immunity not provided to makers of other products.

But don’t cry yet. Your love for such people slaughtering devices may be validated when the right wing hacks on the SCOTUS get the case.

 

[Dawg]

That sure a hell didn't stop you from hobblin' over to the hospital to get a knee replacement though did it? Why didn't you get your car mechanic to do the job since he causes fewer deaths than the doctors who replaced your knee?

It flew right over that BIG head of yours evidently. Doctors kill more people than any profession on earth, wait it has to the tools the manufacturers manufactured so the instrument must be sued.

Why even ask stupid questions for such a "smart" man? BTW: I couldn't operate on my knee but I damn sure can keep my vehicles running.

 

[Dawg]

If gun manufacturers have defenses under the laws that apply to all other products, so be it. They can try to convince a jury. But the issue here was the special immunity given by Congress to the gun industry. There’s no reason they should have immunity not provided to makers of other products.

But don’t cry yet. Your love for such people slaughtering devices may be validated when the right wing hacks on the SCOTUS get the case.

When was last hammer manufactures sued?

https://www.inquisitr.com/467081/hammers-are-more-deadly-than-rifles-according-to-fbi-statistics/

 

[NinaS]

It flew right over that BIG head of yours evidently. Doctors kill more people than any profession on earth, wait it has to the tools the manufacturers manufactured so the instrument must be sued.

Why even ask stupid questions for such a "smart" man? BTW: I couldn't operate on my knee but I damn sure can keep my vehicles running.

LINK to that BS?? Doctors saved your mangy life according to your past pleas for sympathy.

 

[Dawg]

LINK to that BS?? Doctors saved your mangy life according to your past pleas for sympathy.

"don't post to me, I'm tired of your shit" hypocrite

https://www.naturalnews.com/038889_doctors_guns_statistics.html

as PN posted, you follow me around like a puppy and shove your sympathy lie back in your lard mouth.

 

[UPNYA2]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

This is great news. Republicans claim that they want everyone to be treated equally. They don't. They want special protections for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers.

If you are hurt in a car accident you can sue the car company. A jury of your peers will decide if the car company was negligent or if the driver of the car is wholly responsible. That's fair.

A jury should be able to decide the same things when a gun is involved.

Republicans don't like that idea. Why do republicans hate the idea of a jury deciding right and wrong?

That is incorrect.

This case, according to the article that you linked to, allows manufacturers to be sued because of their marketing, not because of the commodity they manufacturer in general.

From your link;
"In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

In the majority opinion, the justices wrote that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

"Marketing", "slogans", "promotional schemes"...………..

THESE issues are what is being tried here.
THESE issues are merely the latest issues being used to try to get around decades of failed attempts to outlaw guns period.

To put your comparison of gun to car manufacturers into a more honest, accurate perspective this would be more akin to suing the manufacturers for marketing their Mustangs, camaros, Corvettes, Hellcats etc. as race type, "manly" vehicles any time someone took one of them and drove it into a crowd.

It is a weak-assed, at best, attempted power grab that is destined to fail.

As usual.

 

[PNWest]

That is incorrect.

This case, according to the article that you linked to, allows manufacturers to be sued because of their marketing, not because of the commodity they manufacturer in general.

From your link;
"In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

In the majority opinion, the justices wrote that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

"Marketing", "slogans", "promotional schemes"...………..

THESE issues are what is being tried here.
THESE issues are merely the latest issues being used to try to get around decades of failed attempts to outlaw guns period.

To put your comparison of gun to car manufacturers into a more honest, accurate perspective this would be more akin to suing the manufacturers for marketing their Mustangs, camaros, Corvettes, Hellcats etc. as race type, "manly" vehicles any time someone took one of them and drove it into a crowd.

It is a weak-assed, at best, attempted power grab that is destined to fail.

As usual.

The fact remains that gun and ammo manufacturers enjoy protections from the damage that their products cause that no other product manufacturers enjoy. And that it dead wrong.

And it is only because of laws passed by republicans owned by the NRA. Hypocritical Republicans say they want a free market. But in fact they tilt the scales to favor the industries that support them.

 

[PNWest]

"don't post to me, I'm tired of your shit" hypocrite

https://www.naturalnews.com/038889_doctors_guns_statistics.html

as PN posted, you follow me around like a puppy

I thought you and Nina had a long history together? Haven't you two been going at it for years now?

 

[Dino]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

This is great news. Republicans claim that they want everyone to be treated equally. They don't. They want special protections for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers.

If you are hurt in a car accident you can sue the car company. A jury of your peers will decide if the car company was negligent or if the driver of the car is wholly responsible. That's fair.

A jury should be able to decide the same things when a gun is involved.

Republicans don't like that idea. Why do republicans hate the idea of a jury deciding right and wrong?

If someone runs you over with their car can you sue the car company?