Federal judge gave the green light to sue firearm companies

[Tanis143]

This right here was what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms was supposed to prevent, but that didn't stop this Judge from ignoring it. Now Springfield finds itself in the same boat as Remington, fighting a lawsuit for something they had no control over. Just further blame shifting and wanton destruction of the 2nd amendment by the left.





https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/29/us/p...aS7sIb2aoyx_cHwVrxap0nDCRaH2OBCzcED1haLLJ8WVw

 

[John6185]

A drunk driver hit someone last night and kill them. The drunk was driving a Ford so now Ford can be sued based on the decision, same principle. It isn't the gun, it isn't the car it is the guy pulling the trigger and behind the wheel.

 

[Snattlerake]

Here is the crux of the matter. A boy accidentally killed a friend with a gun he thought was unloaded.
It is apparent the child removed the magazine and assumed the gun was unloaded. He pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger. Bang! It is the gun manufacturer's fault the boy didn't obey rule number 1 and rule number 2. I feel the parents are grieving and see a money tree on the horizon for not teaching their kid about personal responsibility and the dangers of firearms and you don't respawn when you are killed.

Gustafson's parents sued both Springfield Armory and Saloom Department Store, asserting that they "were negligent and strictly liable for manufacturing and/or selling the defective handgun that caused their son's death," court documents state, alleging the gun's design was defective because it lacked a safety feature "to disable it from firing without the clip attached."

 

[chuter]

So if a 14 year old gets in a car and kills somebody, the car manufacturer can be sued.
That seems about right given all the other crap going on.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

It’s been a growing trend for years. Take no responsibility, blame someone else.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It’s been a growing trend for years. Take no responsibility, blame someone else.

I don't think it is that in cases such as this. It's about the money.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If the parents left a gun laying around where their kids could get hold of it and play with it, they should be held criminally liable for purchasing a gun that didn't meet all the safety requirements necessary to keep the gun from being discharged in the hands of children.

Woody

 

[Fredkrueger100]

This is just another piece taken out of the 2A. It will never stop until the whole thing is destroyed.

 

[HJB]

A drunk driver hit someone last night and kill them. The drunk was driving a Ford so now Ford can be sued based on the decision, same principle. It isn't the gun, it isn't the car it is the guy pulling the trigger and behind the wheel.

We all know the arguments that car companies are not liable when drunk drivers kill people.

But trying to approach this from a common sense point of view is pretty useless and will always be as long as the left can't get it's way on gun ownership. So, really no use plowing this ground again.

This judge is out of line and and idiot, and clearly ignoring the law. He will be reversed at some point.

 

[Jcelt]

The Supreme Court could make an important decision on this if it makes it that far.