Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, October 15, 2016

A Connecticut judge has dismissed a lawsuit that was filed against the manufacturer and seller of the weapon used in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

The dismissal comes months after a judge allowed the case to proceed against Remington Arms, maker of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, as well as the distributor and seller. The families sought damages and relief in their lawsuit, arguing that the weapon that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook should never have been sold in the civilian marketplace.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Figured I'd break up the monotony of the current Trump orgy of stories on the DR with a story to bring us all together.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Congress has broadly prohibited lawsuits against gun-makers for harm caused by their weapons, Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled Friday."

Needless to say, all the right-wingers who are so opposed to government intervention in the marketplace staunchly defend this government intervention in the marketplace.

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The only alternative for the court.

#2 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-15 03:24 PM | Reply

Good, it was a retarded case to begin. I see #1 is especially moist about it.

#3 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-15 03:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3

Seems to be a feature of the perpetually clueless.

(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the
Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest
groups and others are based on theories without foundation in
hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the
United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the
common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a
maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil
liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the
Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several
States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a
deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed
to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
www.gpo.gov

#5 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-15 06:23 PM | Reply

Low turnout of right-wingers defending government placing one industry above the law which nearly all others have to suffer. (The one I can think of that doesn't, we keep a Federal register of adverse events whenever legal products being used as intended result in harm. Naturally, that safety and oversight measure is rejected by the right-wingers when it comes to guns.)

Guess guns must not be much of an issue this election.

Which seems strange, because I was pretty sure Hillary Clinton was running, and she wants to take your guns away. Or maybe that was just a rumor.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 07:05 PM | Reply

Good, it was just a money grab.

#7 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-15 07:39 PM | Reply

#7

Civil suits are, to some extent, a "money grab" but that is not a reason to support this decision. This is good result because it upholds the supremacy of a federal statute designed to protect lawful commerce from liability for the criminal actions of third parties with whom they have no business relationship. When enacted most of those suits were brought by local governments and NGO's whose stated purpose was to put gun dealers and manufacturers out of business, stated another way the statute protects lawful commerce from government.

Here's the court's opinion. civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-15 08:49 PM | Reply

When enacted most of those suits were brought by local governments and NGO's whose stated purpose was to put gun dealers and manufacturers out of business

I bet the abortionists wish they had that kind of Federal carve-out.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 09:16 PM | Reply

Snoofy, they have that federal carve-out because gun ownership is a constitutional right.

The right to choose is based on common law (the right to privacy). If we stuck the to the constitution, the right to life would trump it.

#10 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-15 10:44 PM | Reply

Low turnout of right-wingers defending government placing one industry above the law which nearly all others have to suffer.

It isn't the only industry to have this type of protection. Pharmaceutical companies have similar immunity in regard to vaccines.

You might see more of this type of legislation if more industries were deliberately attacked by pointless lawsuits as a strategy to bankrupt them.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-15 10:45 PM | Reply

Yeah, I mentioned pharmaceuticals though not by name in #6.

You might see more of this type of legislation if more industries were deliberately attacked by pointless lawsuits as a strategy to bankrupt them.

You might not, if the industry is abortion.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 10:49 PM | Reply

#12 Dammit, abortion is not a constitutional right. It comes from common law, and can be overturned.

#13 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-15 10:53 PM | Reply

Roe v. Wade: A Simple Explanation Of the Most Important SCOTUS Decision in 40 Years
Mark Kogan's avatar image By Mark Kogan

On the 40th anniversary, 63% of Americans stated that they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. With the overwhelming majority holding firmly in support of abortion rights for the second decade in a row, it appears that the landmark case enshrining abortion as a fundamental right is here to stay.

mic.com

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-15 10:59 PM | Reply

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You don't sound like a crazy gun totin' prepper at all.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 11:00 PM | Reply

#15 You won't be laughing when I post this UFO story of a GIANT FLYING CROSS signaling Christs return in a few seconds.

#16 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-15 11:03 PM | Reply

Vaccines, like guns, could be strategically bankrupted out of production, apparently.

The public health and economic benefit of vaccines is beyond question. Guns, not so much.

A vocal minority of Americans just really likes guns. You might say it's part of our DNA. (I would call it the retrovirus part, but that's just me.)

A much smaller minority, who that first vocal minority pretends they have nothing to do with, also really likes guns, because of how useful they are for any manner of nefarious purposes.

Then there's another group of people. Most of the time when a gun functions properly and it leads to a death of a person, it's the person who pulled the trigger who dies.

Sad.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 11:08 PM | Reply

Lanza had quite the arsenal at his disposal.
But this ain't a video game, you can only carry so much.
Given his mission parameters, was he armed as effectively as he could have been?
Was the Bushmaster his best available choice, as plaintiffs alleged?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 11:11 PM | Reply

The public health and economic benefit of vaccines is beyond question. Guns, not so much.

Irrelevant.

What's relevant is the intentional usage of lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt a company otherwise engaging in legal commerce.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-15 11:15 PM | Reply

"A vocal minority of Americans just really likes guns." - Snoofy

Half of American households own guns.

#20 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-15 11:23 PM | Reply

The results show that the high-water mark was in 1977, when 50.4 percent of households had firearms. Since then, the survey found there's been a long-term decline in the percentage of households with guns, which dropped to 31 percent in 2014 - the latest survey available.

www.politifact.com

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-15 11:27 PM | Reply

Wrong. I read a CDC report that it was 50%. I'll find it for you.

#22 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-15 11:31 PM | Reply

Ah, you're right. That report was from twenty years ago....

Today it's 31%.

#23 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-15 11:37 PM | Reply

What's relevant is the intentional usage of lawsuits in an attempt to bankrupt a company otherwise engaging in legal commerce

Happens all the time. It even has its own acronym. NIMBY.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 11:49 PM | Reply

It's still 50 percent in the ‎Betelgeuse system. They are mostly rwingers.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-16 12:03 AM | Reply

There's no acronym for it, but you'll also notice a host of local government restrictions attempting to make abortion unavailable in the GOP controlled South.

And if you listen real close, you can hear crickets, over the outrage of the gun lovers at the unfairness of those lawsuits, designed to do away with legal commerce.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 12:03 AM | Reply

We should talk about Lanza's and Muhammad and Malvo's choice of the Bushmaster.
That's the interesting part of this story.
Obviously the lawsuit was never gonna work.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 12:06 AM | Reply

... abortion is not a constitutional right. It comes from common law, and can be overturned.

I'm not aware that abortion was a common law right, though it might well be described as such, yet your point stands, common law rights are subject to legislation absent constitutional constraint. For abortion that constraint was eventually found to emanate from the penumbra's of the constitution, the right of privacy. The fundamental difference with firearms is the express constraint of the Second Amendment.

For both rights the courts have given interpretations that provide for legislation. That's the argument today--how much? We see legislatures push with courts responding both ways, some days chicken some days feathers.

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-16 12:49 AM | Reply

#28 Doesn't the right to privacy come out of common law? I recall hearing that it wasn't something anybody talked about until photography came on the scene, and then the first outrages hwere caused by reporters.

Anyway, the right to privacy says: butt out. Something I'm sure abortion supporters can support when it comes to gun rights.

#29 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-16 01:02 AM | Reply

Whatever. Theres no reciprociry there.

I've never once heard a gun lover suggest that Federal legislation protect abortion from state and local restiction the way guns are and vaccines are.

Nor do gun advocates tolerate something like an adverse event reporting system like we have for vaccines.

Guns are special. So are you guys.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 01:38 AM | Reply

No offense snooty, but you've become a giant idiot on the topic of guns.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-16 02:36 AM | Reply

Oh? Have I said anything that's wrong?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 02:43 AM | Reply

If you want to argue you're not special, like either Cork from that TV show or the one we have here, you're likely to win.

Was there something else?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 02:44 AM | Reply

Have I said anything that's wrong?

Comparing guns to vaccine for one.

Throwing abortion in for two.

NIMBY for strike three.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-16 03:08 AM | Reply

Lol. You made the same comparison to vaccines.

Special.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 03:33 AM | Reply

Abortion is an example of a legal trade that isn't federally exempted from local and state meddling.

Its special that you couldn't see the contrast.

Likewise that you cant see how Texas is trying to NIMBY abortion.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 03:36 AM | Reply

"No offense snooty, but you've become a giant idiot on the topic of guns."

Snoofy sees a well armed world of white privilege against a backdrop of institutional racism.

#37 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-16 04:36 AM | Reply

The well armed world of white privilege usually uses their guns to kill: Themselves.

Is that the silver lining, you figure?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 04:48 AM | Reply

Lol. You made the same comparison to vaccines.

Special.

#35 | Posted by snoofy

Ummmmmmm...no.

I said pharmaceutical companies have similar immunity in the case of vaccine production, ie a fact.

You said vaccines have a valid public health application and guns do not, ie an opinion.

You're slipping, dude. Is it the weed? Booze? Others?

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-16 05:10 AM | Reply

Abortion is an example of a legal trade

What's special is your equating a medical procedure with a manufacturing process.

What's specialer-er is your apparent lack of awareness of placing a a court-defined right above an explicit Constitutional right.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-16 05:15 AM | Reply

What's specialer-er is your apparent lack of awareness of placing a a court-defined right above an explicit Constitutional right.

Huh? I'm aware that this piece of legislation does that,the one where you can't sue for liability.
The fact that one right is Constitutional and another is court-defined is immaterial to the impact of
www.gpo.gov
This law isn't legal because it deals with a law that came about via the Amendment process.
I don't know what point you think you're making.
Vaccines have similar shield from liability; vaccines aren't an explicit Constitui0noar right, are they?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 05:55 AM | Reply

You said vaccines have a valid public health application and guns do not, ie an opinion.

There's data suggesting guns are a public health benefit?
Please, let's see it.
No need for opinions.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 05:56 AM | Reply

SNOOFY

Guns DO have a valid public health application. It called DEATH.

#43 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-10-16 06:32 AM | Reply

I bet the abortionists wish they had that kind of Federal carve-out.

#9 | Posted by snoofy

Damn son................ They get away with legal murder. What more do you want?

#44 | Posted by Sniper at 2016-10-16 06:16 PM | Reply

Well, if you've been reading, you can probably guess that I want a Federal shield protecting their legal business from lawsuits designed to put them out of business.

Although I would accept the removal of the gun shield as a less than optimal compromise.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 06:52 PM | Reply

There's data suggesting guns are a public health benefit?
Please, let's see it.
No need for opinions.

Yeah, that was a dumb way to word it since firearms are clearly a public health issue.

My point was that vaccine having a public health benefit is a good reason to give manufacturers immunity but the opposite being true for firearms doesn't mean they should be sued out of business. It's still legal commerce and an illegal use of the product that lies solely on the person committing the crime.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-16 07:16 PM | Reply

Yeah, that was a dumb way to word it since firearms are clearly a public health issue.

I can't figure out how you see them as a public health issue, but don't think anything should be done about it from a public health approach.

The only explanation that makes sense is you think whatever that intervention is, it will make it harder or even impossible for you to enjoy the diversity of experience you currently enjoy with your guns.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 07:20 PM | Reply

but don't think anything should be done about it from a public health approach.

That's odd considering I've never said that...

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-16 07:28 PM | Reply

Was the Bushmaster his best available choice, as plaintiffs alleged?

#18 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2016-10-15 11:11 PM | FLAG:

No. It was not.

#49 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-10-17 02:01 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort