Sandy Hook School Shooting

Lawsuit Blames Gun Maker for Sandy Hook Massacre

|

Connecticut State Police

The families of nine people murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, plus a survivor of the massacre, are suing Bushmaster, the North Carolina company that made the semiautomatic rifle Adam Lanza used in the attack. The lawsuit also names as defendants the weapon's distributor and the East Windsor, Connecticut, gun store that sold it to Nancy Lanza, the killer's mother. Although none of these businesses broke any laws, the plaintiffs argue that they are guilty of "negligent entrustment" because they made a gun with no legitimate civilian uses available to the general public. Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Wall Street Journal "there is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons that [it] is no longer reasonable to entrust them to [civilians]."

It is not clear exactly what Koskoff means by "these weapons." At the time of the massacre, the gun that Lanza used, a legally compliant version of the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, was not considered an "assault weapon" under Connecticut law, which allowed rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips as long as they did not have any of four other "military-style" features. After the massacre, the state legislature changed the law to ban that particular model by name, along with rifles that accept detachable magazines and have any of five features: 1) "a folding or telescoping stock," 2) "any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing," 3) "a forward pistol grip," 4) "a flash suppressor," or 5) "a grenade launcher or flare launcher."

In other words, Lanza's gun, which he took from his mother, was not an "assault weapon" when he used it to kill 20 children and six adults, but now it is. That fact highlights the point that "assault weapons" are whatever legislators say they are; the term has no meaning independent of legislative fiat. It therefore seems risky to assume that the guns arbitrarily placed in that category are uniquely suited to mass murder or uniquely inappropriate for legal uses. In this case, Koskoff and his associates are implausibly suggesting that a pistol grip was the difference between life and death for Lanza's victims.

That dubious claim is not the only problem with the lawsuit, which uses a negligent entrustment theory to dodge the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that was designed to block exactly this sort of litigation. The law, which is objectionable on federalist grounds but is nevertheless still in force, bans lawsuits against gun makers and sellers for damages "resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse" of their products. It does include an exception for "an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment." But in this case the plaintiffs are stretching that concept to cover an entire segment of the firearms industry, without regard to the individual characteristics of gun buyers or the seller's knowledge of those characteristics (except for the fact that they are neither soldiers nor police officers).

To give you a sense of how far-fetched that claim is, the Journal reports that Dennis Henigan, former director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "said the lawsuit would test the limits of the negligent-entrustment legal theory." Henigan, a leading advocate of the litigation that provoked the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, explained that "the issue in this case will be whether courts are willing to construe the doctrine of negligent entrustment so broadly as to encompass a theory of liability that is based on the sale of a particular gun to the general public instead of to a potentially particular dangerous individual."

Advertisement

NEXT: The Best of the Worst of 2014: Don't Cops Have Better Things to Do?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I hope these vile pigs get their fucking asses handed to them.

    1. Vile pigs being the dead kiddies’ parents.

      1. I can’t really blame the parents. Grief makes people do weird things. The vile pigs are the lawyers who are advising them to sue the companies.

        1. I can and do blame the parents. Sure, grief makes people do weird things. That doesn’t immunize the bereaved from being held responsible for the stupid shit they do.

          1. Exactly. Grief is not some get-out-of-moral-responsibility-free card. We’ve all lost people, you don’t get to become a scumbag because of it.

            1. I know they mean a lot to you Epi, but your MLP dolls aren’t “people” in the normal sense of the word.

              And maybe you wouldn’t lose them so often if you didn’t drag them all to conventions with you.

              1. Sigh. We’ve been over this before, Hugh. I’m not a Brony. My dolls are all Strawberry Shortcake originals. And they are people!

                1. Originals as in the ones from the 80s? Does that mean you don’t have Bitch Pudding?

                  1. BITCH PUDDING IS NOT AN ORIGINAL

                1. Man, I drank a lot of cough syrup that day.

                2. **Sighs and wistfully thinks of Dora**

              2. There is only one true Brony in the realm of H&R.

                1. Actually, if you’ve been paying attention, there’s actually three. There’s just one who keeps pointing it out over and over.

            2. you don’t get to become a scumbag because of it

              It would appear that you in fact do.

          2. No, but having this idiotic lawsuit summarily dismissed is responsibility enough for the parents. The lawyers should be disbarred and then parted out.

            1. The lawyers should be keel-hauled. Over a really barnacle raddled keel.

              1. Why waste the material when someone else could use it?

          3. You’d think their lawyers would have refused to take the case.

            AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!111!!!

            1. What?

              And lose out on millions in legal fees?

              Not to mention a lawyer could be a true believer in gun control and do it pro bono.

        2. I think this has more to do with gun-grabbers trying to find a way to ruin the gun manufacturing/sales markets since they can’t get it done via legislation. Liberals use the courts all the time when democracy fails them.

      2. Wow. You are one sick bastard.

        1. I’m assuming you are speaking of the lawyer of these vile pig parents.

        2. Yeah, ok.

          The sick bastards are the people who blame anyone or thing other than the dickhead who killed their kids.

          1. As I recall, some of the parents stood up and defended gun rights in the wake of the shootings.

            1. And this is pertinent to my comment how?

              1. Not a very well placed response, sorry. It was more in response to your earlier comment “Vile pigs being the dead kiddies’ parents”.

                I do understand that you are only calling the ones bringing suit, vile pigs. Just thought it worth pointing out that some of the parents are more reasonable.

  2. Why the hell is a pistol grip considered “military style”? And the military uses shotguns and pistols. Does that mean civilians can’t use them? Ridiculous.

    1. Pistol Grips: They’re sized and shaped sorta like a penis, which makes em extra rapey.

    2. and knives as well – however many kitchen knives are longer than military knives.

      got to ban them as well.

    3. I have two Winchester Model 1897s that are still in good firing condition, both a riot version and the traditional longer barrel (but without the bayonet lug, sadly). During WWI the Germans tried to get them outlawed in combat because they considered them too devastating and cruel a weapon. I’ve also got a Remington 870 with a pistol grip. Presumably that means the gun grabbers don’t believe civilians (excluding police, I assume) are capable of not going on killing sprees with those as well. I’ve managed to pull it off, but just by the skin of my teeth.

      1. My Mossberg 590A1 has a bayonet lug with bayonet. I too am amazed I haven’t gone postal on a school, mall, or some other gun-free zone.

    4. Military also used rifles without pistol grips. You’d think the idea of a rifle that is very similar to a scout sniper’s rifle would terrify the bejesus out of liberals.

  3. Bushmaster is as guilty for their child’s death as they are for allowing their child to leave the house. Go sue yourselves.

    1. there is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world public school system to control these weapons shooters that [it] is no longer reasonable to entrust them to [civilians] children to schools.

      Obviously, sue the parents.

      1. Teacher’s Union as well.

  4. Was the weapon defective in some respect?

    1. No and it wasn’t even used in the killings – it was in the trunk of the car the whole time.

      Tough proving their case right??

      just hoping for a settlement – hopefully the gun manufacturer’s lawyers will fight and countersue the crap out of them.

      1. Incorrect. The Saiga was in the trunk the whole time. The Bushmaster was in the school.

        Please stop repeating untruths from the “didn’t happen, false flag” crowd.

  5. the plaintiffs argue that they are guilty of “negligent entrustment” because they made a gun with no legitimate civilian uses available to the general public.

    I’m guessing Bushmaster can put on tens of thousands of witnesses to dispute this.

    What I’m hoping they do is go after the plaintiff’s lawyer for filing a frivolous claim.

    1. Probably not even going to get that far.

    2. What the fuck is a “legitimate civilian use”? There is one and only one use for all guns: to kill things.

      1. And shoot targets. Which is how the vast majority of ammo gets expended, after all.

        1. Shooting targets is something you can do with a firearm, but that doesn’t change the fact that a gun is a weapon. The purpose of a weapon is to inflict harm upon a living being. As weapons are tools for self-defense, I wouldn’t want a gun that wasn’t primarily designed to kill things.

          1. Fine. I’ll just take all my Nerf guns and go play with someone else, then.

            1. Listen, I didn’t choose the thug life, thug life chose me.

            2. I would recommend not playing with your Nerf gun. It will probably get you shot and killed by the police.

            3. As a young man, while working as a teller, I used to roam the halls alongside the VP of lending shooting unsuspecting coworkers with a variety of Nerf weapons. Ten years later I can only imagine the unpleasant discussions with HR that would follow our spree.

              1. Hmmm, creating a hostile work environment and sexual harassment. Monster.

              2. I work with an older guy who does exactly that now. Probably wouldn’t go over so well in the main office in CA.

              3. As a young man, I told a very fetching coworker that I would be honored to take her out to a wonderful dinner.

                Next thing I know I’m in jail for the rest of my life.

            4. *raises hand to volunteer*

          2. There’s a lot of Olympic shooters who would dispute your claim. Certainly, their guns CAN kill people. So can target bows, javelins, shotputs, discoids and other weapons of war.

            So can nailguns and jackhammers.

            There are guns designed specifically for killing at close range that can still work at 400 yards. Others are designed for 1000 yards and will still kill at 3. Others are optimized for paper targets, or metal targets.

            Distilling it down to “guns kill” is the kind of mindless retardery beloved of the opposition.

          3. What makes it a weapon is intention. Lots of people buy guns for the sole purpose of shooting targets, not people or animals, for recreation. Just like anything else that can be used to harm others, it’s not a weapon until it’s used with the intent of harming others. A gun used only to shoot targets is no different than a baseball bat or a golf club. A sporting instrument.

      2. That’s what stuck in my mind, too.

        “No legitimate use.” Says who? Maybe shooting it is just fun for some folks. I know everyone deals with grief differently, but those people should go fuck themselves.

      3. Tin cans beg to differ.

        1. “Muh cans, muh precious antique cans! Awww look what you done to ’em.”

        2. HE HATES THESE CANS!

      4. Well, yes and no. The AR-pattern rifle is ubiquitous in the sporting field – I have a couple myself that are set up for 3-gun competition. So do all of the shooters I hang out with.

        That said, I do agree that shooting people is a perfectly legitimate use, and I always feel a little dirty when referring to the sporting use defense. It will probably play better with the jury, though.

      5. There may be one designed purpose for all guns, as you say. But there are any number of uses. And any one of those uses except for using it or threatening to use it against another person without justification are legitimate uses.

        Target shooting is a legitimate civilian use. Looking at it because you think it is cool is a legitimate civilian use. Nearly everything anyone ever does with one of those guns is a legitimate use. The claim is just absurd.

      6. self defense for one, sport shooting for another and hunting.

        All of these the Bushmaster is excellent at.

        1. Other than the fact it’s a Bushmaster. But I should check my VLTOR privilege.

      7. Does that include non-human animals? Sue the people who sell hunting licenses.

    3. Who gives a shit if they have a legitimate civilian use.

      1. ZACTLY! Why in the fuck would it matter if there is a legitimate civilian purpose or not?

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        1. Exercising your second amendment rights is a legitimate civilian use.

        2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [with legitimate civilian uses], shall not be infringed.

          /fixed

        3. Except to keep and bear Arms you must be a Member of the Militia and the State isn’t accepting Applications now? or ever.

          They’ve adapted the Alabama GOP’s abortion playbook?

          (And it says nothing about the legality of ammunition?)

          1. Two things:

            1) “The militia” is, by law and by custom, pretty much every able-bodied male.

            2) The militia clause is a subordinate, explanatory clause. It does not restrict the right in any way, it only explains why the right exists. “The people” is to whom the right is secured to, not the militia.

            As an example, the Copyright clause has a similar construction:

            “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

            If we were to accept your interpretation, this would mean that patents and copyrights only need be issued to “useful” arts and advances in science, which the vast majority of current works would not qualify for. However, the courts have consistently ruled that this is not the case, that the first part of that sentence is merely an explanatory clause as to why congress should have the power to grant patents and copyrights, and does not describe what works are required to be protected.

            1. Oh, one more thing:

              (And it says nothing about the legality of ammunition?)

              Since ammunition is necessary for the right to be meaningful, it by necessity also covers ammunition, so that argument is a complete non starter. It’s like saying you are allowed to own a printing press but it’s legal to outlaw (or even merely tax) ink because the First Amendment says nothing about ink, something that the Supreme Court has already declared to be unconstitutional (see Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner.)

      2. As I point out above, thinking that they are cool and wanting one so you can play with it (in a safe and responsible manner, of course) is a legitimate civilian use. Even if it had no practical use for a civilian (which it obviously does), that would have nothing to do with whether there are legitimate civilian uses.

    4. This. Lawyer, idiot parents, the State of Connecticut…

      I’m sure half of those have some sort of immunity.

    5. You’ll appreciate this, their attorney is a MedMal guy.

    6. Have them define “Legitimate civilian uses.” The lawsuit will be thrown out before they finish the “uhhh, well, umm,”‘s.

    7. Even if Bushmaster et al wins the suit, i doubt they’d counter-sue. Can you imagine the negative image you’d get for suing the parents of a child that was killed at such a publicized tragedy as Sandy Hook?

  6. if successful, a manufacturer would be a fool to sell to PDs.

    1. au contraire, PDs and military would be the only ones who could afford the guns once they get marked up to cover the cost of liability lawsuits. It’s a way to price guns out of civilian hands (unless you are rich. very progressive), and makes it so that mostly only the government has guns. Liberal wet dream.

  7. Come on, it was obvious this was coming. Even though the gun grabbers tried but couldn’t do much with this massacre, it was such a huge story and so prominent that there was no way some lawyer wasn’t going to figure out at least an attempted way to cash out from it.

    They will most likely get shot down, but you never know, which is what the lawyers are hoping for.

    1. The last Mayor Daley tried this – even with friendly judges, all his attempts came to naught.

    2. They will most likely get shot down

      Like their kids?

      Too soon, Episiarch! Too soon!

    3. Looks to me like they failed to get the legislation they wanted to ban guns, so they’re using the courts. When democracy fails liberals, they often run to the courts to get their way. Like Proposition B in California.

  8. It is not clear exactly what Koskoff means by “these weapons.”

    No, it’s pretty clear “these weapons” are “scary looking weapons.”

    1. Yeah, ’cause you know I am much more afraid of a pistol grip than the supersonic piece of lead that is coming out of it. Classifying weapons as “assault weapons” based on appearance is a perfect example of government by feeling. Ridiculous, useless and wasteful, but it make idiots “feel” better so “Let’s do it!”

  9. there is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons that [it] is no longer reasonable to entrust them to [civilians].

    Pay no attention to the millions of gun owners that responsibly own and operate their firearms.

    And you have to love the implication that only cops should get to use what is effectively a hunting rifle wearing a costume. Because they have proven themselves soooooo capable….

    1. Everyone who reads that should experience bouts of pants-shitting terror and respond by doxing the lawyers. Police ARE civilians, and anyone who argues differently is doing so under sinister motives. The whole idea behind “officers of the peace” is that they’re supposed to be civilians first and foremost, charged with resolving conflicts and keeping the peace (there’s that word again) primarily by leveraging their knowledge of and ties to the community.

    2. Funny because it’s the liberals who are out protesting police brutality and unaccountability right now.

  10. This is dumb. Real dumb. So dumb that it just might work.

    1. I’m sure the courts will do the right thing and throw out this lawsuit…

      Oh, wait. That never happens.

  11. Just a little background, from wiki, on “negligent entrustment.”

    Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (the entrustee) with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. The cause of action most frequently arises where one person allows another to drive their automobile.

    Seems to me they need to show that Bushmaster acted negligently in sending this particular firearm to the distributor. Good luck with that.

    If this succeeds, you can expect to see motorcycle manufacturers sued for every motorcycle accident. Also, car manufacturers for every sports car accident (“Nobody needs more than 90 horsepower!”).

    Its pure harassment, underwritten I am sure by the usual suspects. That’s why a countersuit/frivolous claim argument needs to be made.

    1. It’s a entrustmentax.

      I have every faith that they will be able to shop this around to find the perfect idiot to sit as a judge and be able to pluck the tiny little heartstrings of an equally idiotic jury, and get an award.

      These people are in pain. *Someone* has to compensate them.

      1. No chance.

    2. Seems to me they need to show that Bushmaster acted negligently in sending this particular firearm to the distributor. Good luck with that.

      They sold a scary death-thing to someone who wasn’t a trusted government employee!

      How much more negligent can you get?!?

      1. “…who wasn’t a trusted government employee!”

        You mean trusted government employee such as the one who shot and killed Pat Tillman with “friendly” fire?

      2. Isn’t “trusted government employee” an oxymoron?

    3. Yeah, maybe his mother was guilty of negligent entrustment. But she dead.

    4. Or law schools facing suits due to lawyers that sue gun manufacturers!

    5. I would think that neither the Bushmaster or the gun store could be found liable then because they were sold to the mother, who was a victim of her son who took the rifles. You can’t be held liable of the product you produced was stolen from the one you sold it to and used for a crime. Then again, in this “justice” system, maybe you can.

  12. Am I the only one wondering why they don’t go after the Framers’ descendents?

    1. Really, they should sue the Chinese people. All of them. Their ancestors should have known better than to entrust mankind with gun powder.

      1. Military style chemicals.

        1. Really, Mother Gaia should have known better than to leave all these raw materials around. BURN HER!

          1. Finally, that bitch Shiva will be in jail where she belongs.

    2. I missed your comment. (see mine below) Yup. I was thinking the same thing too.

      Negligent entrustment does not apply to cops and military though. They are inherently worthy of our trust.

  13. “Joshua Koskoff, an attorney…told The Wall Street Journal ‘there is SO MUCH ample evidence of…'”

    This would constitute amply ample evidence…

    1. Care to amplify that statement?

    2. Does the ample go to eleven?

    3. I think he means “more worser”.

  14. Negligent entrustment?

    These guys should sue the Founding Fathers for negligently entrusting us proles with the right to keep and bear arms.

  15. It’s very important that people understand that lawyers rarely get disciplined for bringing frivolous lawsuits to the court.

    Michael Koskoff of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder likely knows that his clients don’t have a leg to stand on, but doesn’t give a shit. The publicity will net his firm more clients, and he will likely get Bloomberg’s outfit to pay him money to do this thing.

    Just as cops rarely face sanctions for egregious misconduct like excessive force, lawyers are rarely penalized by the bar for bringing baseless lawsuits.

    1. Koskoff must have watched Runaway Jury and decided to get some media attention.

      1. More like this.

    2. There are the worst possible incentives, just like the police. It’s amazing how eventually, all government becomes almost purely driven by the worst possible incentives.

    3. The problem is deciding what is baseless and what is not. Remember all the ‘legal experts’ that opined that the ACA challenge was baseless.

      1. The problem is deciding what is baseless and what is not.

        That’s tautological. Duh. That’s what judges are paid to do. Its a shame they’ve abandoned this duty, as well.

        Remember all the ‘legal experts’ that opined that the ACA challenge was baseless.

        And judges decided it wasn’t. What’s the problem, here?

        1. I’m going to go out on a limb here and bet there are some legal ideas that people on this site might think are good ones but which would have a good chance of being ruled ‘baseless’ under current law. It’s good to have the envelope be pushed sometimes.

          1. Since most of the out-of-fashion legal ideas folks around here support start and end with applying the plain language of the Constitution, I’m not terribly worried about getting hit with frivolous lawsuit claims.

          2. Mandatory bodycams and dashcams for cops.

    4. Joining his firm in promoting the action is Karen Hinton, a lobbyist and PR expert

      And some attorneys can’t figure out why people hate them…

      1. Hinton, who states in her Twitter biography that she is “taking on big oil, big banks & other big bullies”, has represented clients including Ecuadorian villagers in a long-running multibillion-dollar legal battle with Chevron, the energy corporation, over pollution of the Amazon rainforest.

        Jesus Christ.

        1. That Ecuadorian suit was the one where the villagers’ legal ‘representatives’ falsified evidence and bribed a judge, right?

            1. Here is the court opinion.

              Basically, she was Donziger’s paid shill to spew out propaganda in an attempt to get Chevron to negotiate to get rid of the bad press.

              She seems to have escaped sanction. She claimed that she didn’t know Donziger was forging documents and bribing judges, and there’s no evidence to the contrary.

              But the fact that she is proudly proclaims her part in that fraudulent scheme speaks volumes about her integrity and implies a sociopathic lack of a conscience.

              1. Well, I think we can guess their strategy on this case.

        2. Hinton, who states in her Twitter biography that she is “taking on big oil, big banks & other big bullies”,

          The state is the biggest bully of them all. Is she taking on that bully?

  16. Moment burglarized family ‘captures intruders at gunpoint after passing them in the street – on the way back from ANOTHER break-in’

    Wyatt family’s home surveillance system captured break-in on Friday
    Chris Wyatt was driving nearby when he passed ‘the intruders’ on Sunday
    Held them with guns until cops arrived, car ‘was filled with stolen goods’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ak-in.html

    It is the latest case of vigilante justice in Alabama, where home surveillance systems have soared in popularity over the past two years.

    Um, no? Vigilante justice means they shoot the guy. That’s just a citizens’ arrest. Fucking limeys.

    1. His wife has one of those cute little pink ones.

      1. All women do. The ones you know are just trying to make you feel better.

      2. It’s tasty too!

    2. The nation that gave the world Robert Peel has forgotten the principles he stood for.

      Apparently the UK educational system is just as dysfunctional as ours.

      1. Self defense in the UK is pretty much illegal.

        So it’s no surprise they equate standing up for yourself with vigilantism.

    3. Is vigilantism necessarily completely extra-legal? I’m really not sure.

      It has come to be associated with bad things, but vigilantism is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

      Of course Mail readers will be shocked that such a thing woudl happen in any case.

      1. I don’t see how this was vigilantism. The thief will get due process. No punishment was dealt. It was a citizens’ arrest, not vigilantism.

        1. Well, that’s my question. Are citizens’ arrests and vigilantism by definition mutually exclusive things?

          1. I’m pretty sure it requires punishment to be vigilantism, as in extra-legal justice.

          2. A quick google had the word justice in every definition of vigilante, vigilantism, and such. Justice implies punishment.
            A citizens’ arrest can escalate into vigilante justice, but by itself is not.

            1. How does justice imply punishment? Compensation for damage is not punishment, but it is traditionally a valid means of enacting justice.

        2. Chris Wyatt was not in imminent danger, there was no lawful basis for him to pull a gun on the men.

          Suppose the men in question had refused to be held a gun point and fled. Would he have been jusitified in shoot the fleeing men in the back?

          1. Chris Wyatt was not in imminent danger, there was no lawful basis for him to pull a gun on the men.

            It was in all probability a good citizen’s arrest. For example, the CA code sayd:

            837. A private person may arrest another:

            1.For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.

            2.When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.

            3.When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

            Without digging too much, it looks like a citizen has the same powers as a cop to make an arrest (meaning pulling a gun is OK), but lacks privileges to make a mistake of fact, etc.

      2. Seems the whole extra-legal aspect is baked into the definition. But the negative connotation is strictly a Euro phenomenon. Spineless pussies.

        1. There is also the racist lynching connotation in the US. But there are also examples of mostly good and effective vigilantism as well.

      3. Seeing as Robert Peel, the creator of modern policing (well, until the current paramilitary occupying army mode, anyway) specifically said that the police had no powers and no duties that every citizen didn’t also have, I think he’d support what these folks did.

  17. Although none of these businesses broke any laws, the plaintiffs argue that they are guilty of “negligent entrustment” because they made a gun with no legitimate civilian uses available to the general public.

    Which means that they’re going to argue their case based on their own opinion about a particular product – and a question-begging one at that.

    If the weapon was sold legally in Connecticut, then the weapon was deemed legitimate for civilian use by the legislators. Which higher opinion are you going to take then, the plaintiff’s or the legislators’ who drafted the laws in the first place?

    Just by that condition alone, the lawsuit has no merit.

    Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Wall Street Journal “there is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons that [it] is no longer reasonable to entrust them to [civilians].”

    How does that relate to the case, leaving aside the unsubstantiated assumptions behind such assertion? It is one thing to think that certain categories of weapons should not be in the hands of civilians, quite another that manufacturers are expected to foresee these sentiments about products they developed legally.

    If they get a judge to agree to hear the case, it will only be by sheer luck.

    1. Something can be negligently sold and not illegal. Happens all the time.

      Literally every product-based torts case.

      1. Defective products. Not the claim here.

    2. right, so their argument is with the legislators, not the business that acted legally within the law at the time.

  18. This would be laughable if not for the harassment inherent in invoking the legal system for such a nonsense suit.

    1. This is the saddest part to me. Some gun store owner now has to go out of his way to defend himself from this lawsuit. Even if it doesn’t get anywhere he still will have worry about losing his livelihood.

      Now that I think about it even more I feel bad for the large corporations that have to defend themselves from this as well. I doubt it impacts them mentally as much as (I assume) the sole proprietor who owns the gun store. But, they have to waste their time as well. Just because they have in-house attorneys doesn’t make it okay.

      goddamnit

      1. Something… omelet, something eggs, etc.

      2. But, they have to waste their time as well. Just because they have in-house attorneys doesn’t make it okay.

        And the sad part is, WE as the consumer, pay for it. It is a tax benefitting the disreputable legal profession.

        These fucks are STEALING money out of my pocket under the guise of law. It is repulsive.

      3. It’s really pathetic that they have to defend themselves at all from this. Any judge worth a shit should just throw this thing out and sternly rebuke the lawyers for wasting his time. The gun shop shouldn’t have to do anything. Reminds me of when Reason got sued by that guy who doesn’t fuck sheep.

        1. ALLEGEDLY doesn’t fuck sheep.

          ALLEGEDLY.

      4. So for the gun controllers to succeed, they just have to sue enough to make other small business owners afraid to sell guns and provide enough bad press for big businesses like Walmart to stop selling guns?

  19. They will most likely get shot down, but you never know, which is what the lawyers are hoping for.

    This is dumb. Real dumb. So dumb that it just might work.

    get out of my head. GET OUT OF MY HEAD.

  20. So they’re suing a company for selling an item which is completely legal to a person who was legally allowed to buy it. Sounds legit!

    Also, the negligent entrustment bullshit can be pretty easily disproven. Very few murders are committed with long rifles at all, and fewer still are committed with ‘assault rifles.’ Therefore, the argument that there are no ‘legitimate civilian uses’ is completely ludicrous given the rarity with which these are used in shootings.

    Also, here’s a man hunting with an AR-15 – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..s_AR15.jpg

    All they have to do is show a few pictures of people hunting with AR-15s and that is immediate proof they do have a legitimate civilian use and that the lawsuit is baseless.

    1. “So they’re suing a company for selling an item which is completely legal to a person who was legally allowed to buy it.”

      That part in itself is not that crazy. Lots of tort cases apply to the sale of a product that is not illegal at the time the sale was made.

      1. Sure. Defective product cases. That’s not what this case is.

        1. I’m guessing most negligent entrustment cases didn’t involve any illegal sale or transfer either, wouldn’t you?

          1. No, but negligent entrustment cases involve giving someone access to an item who you know will use it negligently.

            Since Bushmaster gave the gun to a registered dealer, who in turn sold the gun to a woman who was legally allowed to own it, the only person who would be guilty of ‘negligent entrustment’ would be Nancy Lanza for giving the gun to her clearly disturbed son.

            1. Oh, I agree with that. The craziness of the suit is not in that it makes the entrustment which was not illegal in itself actionable, but that it guts one of the elements of the action, that it has to be an entrustment where one knew or should have known was negligent. This action is based on the most un-libertarian of theories, that the general public as a whole can’t be entrusted with the product.

            2. She already paid for that choice.

            3. So what happened to Nancy Lanza’s property? Sell it and give it to the victims and tell them to shut the fuck up as she was the only person besides the killer who might bear any responsability.

            4. IANAL, and yet, I pity Bo’s future clients.

              1. IANAL, and yet, I pity Bo’s future clients.

                Clients? Ha! He’s too stupid to be a working attorney. He’ll end up as a politician or a judge.

                1. I don’t know that stupid is the right word. He’d probably do well in some inhouse job pouring over boring minutia and writing boilerplate that no one will ever read.

                  1. Trust me, poring over minutiae and writing boilerplate are what law firm lawyers do.

                    In-house lawyers have different priorities than stretching every assignment to consume as much time as possible.

                2. He’ll end up as a politician or a judge.

                  College professor.

    2. Wasn’t there some judicial nominee who got scuttled because she thought she could do an end-run around the 2nd amendment by banning guns on nuisance grounds. Can’t remember her name.

    3. And the answer is: Caitlin Halligan

      http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-gary-marx

    4. All they have to do is show a few pictures of people hunting with AR-15s and that is immediate proof they do have a legitimate civilian use and that the lawsuit is baseless.

      Well, hunting is immoral, to wit…illegitimate…case made.

    5. Not for nothing, but a standard AR-15 is chambered in 5.56, not a great deer round.

      By the link, it appears that was an AR chambered in 243 WSSM. More dangerous than a 5.56.

      %.56 is a great ‘varmit’ round. Perfect for coyote, but too big for rabbit or bird, too small for deer.

      1. I don’t know anything about guns, but if the argument is that there is no legitimate civilian use, then all you have to do is show literally any legitimate civilian use.

        1. Sorry, I was looking at this from a debating stand-point.

          As the scumbag lawyer bringing this case, I’d attack that picture for not being a ‘standard’ AR.

          Arguing for the other side, I’d get a picture of someone using 5.56 to rack up a pile of coyote/groundhog/fox/racoon.

          1. I’ve got a brother who knocked down a dozen coyotes over the last couple years with his AR. I should have him send a few pics…case closed.

      2. 5.56mm works great on deer with expanding ammunition.

        It’s illegal in my state since it’s smaller than .23, but I’ve used it elsewhere and it drops deer-sized game just as well as most of the intermediate cartridges do.

        M855 works pretty well on bear.

  21. What will cost Bushmaster more, fighting or settling?

    1. This is probably going to be quickly dismissed.

    2. In the long run? Settling. Because it opens them up to an unending stream of settlements, until they decide to fight.

      Might as well fight the first one.

    3. Settling, because then these suits keep coming back.

      Kill it once, and get the countersuit ruled favorably and you’re golden.

    4. I would fight it out of principle, and get the NRA to help me counter-sue the Bloomtards into bankruptcy.

  22. Next: Girls Gone Wild sue Alcohol
    say, ‘Our tits were exploited’

    OT:

    I just learned now from Facebook that a college friend whose bachelor party i attended 15 years ago has not only divorced that particular wife… but that she is now remarried to someone else from college who was also at the first guy’s bachelor party.

    a few conclusions to take away from this:

    – Whoa. And she wasn’t even very attractive. Then. OR in college. Suddenly i start to think there was backstory there.

    – I really dont check Facebook very often at all. I mean, its like I find out people DIED a year or two after the fact. Embarrassing! I should just stop even trying.

    – The only reason i either cared/remembered/took note of this was because of the guy’s particular Bachelor Party.

    I wasn’t even good friends with the guy. I tagged along with a guy who was. It was in Atlantic City. Borgatta.

    We expected strippers. A big guy shows up with a dwarf in a scuba suit. And a tub of Vaseline.

    I know what you’re thinking. No. He says, “No strippers until you catch the dwarf and bring him back to me.” Meanwhile, shorty is slathering up and stretching out. He’s done this before.

    It took 15 minutes to corner him in the bathroom, and even then it took 4 of us to pick him up and keep a grip on him. We were all exhausted and had wrecked the entire suite. I don’t even remember the strippers.

    Otherwise I would have forgotten this guy existed.

    1. I’m not sure if this is funny or disturbing, but it should definitely be in an episode of Archer.

      1. I would expect Archer to have a technique to quickly capture a greased up dwarf.

        1. Shoot him in the foot

  23. It is clearly the fault of the gun makers, since they knew full well from their crystal ball that one of the many thousands of guns they make would fall into the hands of a murderous lunatic.

    And the Oklahoma City bombing is clearly the fault of the truck rental company, since they knew full well from their crystal ball that one of the many thousands of trucks they rented would go to a murderous lunatic.

    /derp

    1. Next up: oil companies

      They help the public at large pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, causing climate change and whatnot.

      Besides, who needs to take vacations and emit massive amounts of CO2 flying an airplane when they can stay at home and enjoy their own backyard.

      There ought to be a law for that, comrade.

    2. How silly. You know that they use the Magic 8-ball.

  24. When I read case logic presented as this, I can’t help but think that if they win the case, it will be applied to other things. Guns are instruments or tools, and depending on what you do with them, they are still inanimate objects that are useless until placed in the hands of certain individuals. You could then apply this to vehicles, knives, chairs, etc. Any inanimate object could then be considered a weapon if used as such. This lawyer’s belief that citizens aren’t capable of making responsible choices is what drives this country into the hands of people then qualified to make irresponsible choices. SMH…

  25. PIERS MORGAN: Is Santa and kids posing with AK47s what you meant by getting ‘action on guns’ after Sandy Hook, Obama? The Ghosts of Christmas Future are all around us

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..re-us.html
    Do people actually watch his show?

    1. It was the second anniversary of America’s worst ever school shooting yesterday.
      Not that you would know it if you watched any of the nation’s top five Sunday political TV shows.
      Meet The Press, Face The Nation, This Week, Fox News Sunday and State of the Union all failed to even mention Sandy Hook.
      It wasn’t worth a second, or word of their time.
      It was like it simply never happened.
      What a shocking abrogation of journalistic duty, yet typical of a media that simply doesn’t view domestic gun violence as ‘news’ any more

      I thought he got deported or self revoked his green card or something.

    2. Who?

      1. Some washed-up limey commie, I believe.

    3. Santa with an AK47? Hey, I get those 12 Days of Christmas email ads too! Here’s what you do, Piers. Click on the “unsubscribe” link at the bottom of your email ad. Problem solved.

  26. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this a really bizarre definition of ‘negligent entrustment?’ Doesn’t a negligent entrustment generally mean you left an item with a person you should have known would use it dangerously – i.e., you gave a car to somebody who wasn’t allowed to drive or gave a gun to a felon?

    Has there ever been a case where they tried to argue that the entire public is incapable of using an item appropriately and that, therefore, giving it to anyone is necessarily negligent?

    1. “Henigan, a leading advocate of the litigation that provoked the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, explained that “the issue in this case will be whether courts are willing to construe the doctrine of negligent entrustment so broadly as to encompass a theory of liability that is based on the sale of a particular gun to the general public instead of to a potentially particular dangerous individual.”

    2. God save us if they do have such a case. You’re right. This is the precise argument that can turn the whole country into criminals for driving a car, making food, being a butcher, things that involve everyday use objects. I wonder if secretly this case is being supported by the DOJ? Because bullshit like this smells like the crap they try to prop up.

      1. Spalding gets sued every time someone gets beat up with one of their bats.

    3. Has there ever been a case where they tried to argue that the entire public is incapable of using an item appropriately and that, therefore, giving it to anyone is necessarily negligent?

      You mean other than National Firearms Act and/or the Gun Control Act?

    4. Items like alcohol, marijuana, opium?

      1. I had to sign a logbook to buy iodine antiseptic in PA.

  27. the plaintiffs argue that they are guilty of “negligent entrustment” because they made a gun with no legitimate civilian uses available to the general public.

    Based on the Supreme Court’s willingness to hold the civilian population to a much, much higher standard than the police, as evidenced by the earlier post about how “Ignorance of the law is a perfectly acceptable excuse if you are a police officer“, I see them finding in favor of the plaintiffs when this wends its way to their scrutiny.

  28. Hey, if the slimy ambulance chaser can’t get dough out of this, he’ll sue the maker of the shoes the jerk was wearing!

  29. When the litigants lose their case can we make them pay all the costs?

  30. I’m sure some shop owners in Ferguson, MO could come up with some legitimate civilian uses for “these weapons.”

  31. Good job shitting all over your dead kids’ memories…

  32. What it comes down to: It’s a “Scary Black Gun” (SBG). Don’t try to explain that it was a .223 semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle. Would there be any lawsuit if the weapon had been a traditional style rifle (still magazine fed, but with a walnut stock and fore-grip)? Don’t try to explain that a .223 is commonly referred to as a varmint gun, plinking rifle… that many a non-urban teenager has. The weapon in question was “military style.” So what? It’s a freaking .22! When the hammer strikes the cartridge, the bullet’s velocity leaving the barrel is the same regardless of the weapon’s cosmetic design or style.

    1. “So what? It’s a freaking .22!”

      A .223 cartridge is very different from a .22 cartridge.

      1. And more expensive. That’s why you buy kids .22s. They’re happy with shorts.

  33. Would there be any lawsuit if the weapon had been a traditional style rifle (still magazine fed, but with a walnut stock and fore-grip)?

    Like a mini-14?

    1. The A-Team approves this message!

  34. Didn’t the shooter kill his mother and take her guns?

    So, if this line of logic stands up then the victims of 911 should be able to sue Boeing on the same grounds, no?

    1. Or the Home Depot that sold the box cutters.

  35. That fact highlights the point that “assault weapons” are whatever legislators say they are; the term has no meaning independent of legislative fiat.

    It’s my understanding that the military uses/used the term “assault weapon” to refer to weapons like a bazooka, RPG, or bangalore torpedo.

    1. Dunno about that, but “assault rifles” have a pretty clear definition, having mostly to do with mid-power ammo (submachine guns use pistol ammo, assault rifles use dinky rifle rounds with calibers starting in “2”, and battle rifles use manly ammo with calibers starting with “3” or more).

      1. The size of the bullet is not the issues. it is the smaller powder capacity. The AKs uses a 7.62X39 with is .30 caliber. The original AR-10 was to replace the M-14 and uses the same .308 round. I think FALs and other assault rifles also used .30 caliber rounds. The rational is that most combat occurs within 300 yards and the more powerful and longer ranged cartridges like the 30-06 are just wasting powder and less ammo can be carried.

        The STG 44 used the same 8mm (7.92) bullet that the Germans used for their bolt action rifles with a much smaller cartridge case.

        1. I think they did a lot of testing about how the bullet entered the body, the wound channel, how the bullet tumbled inside the body, and whether a would or kill was more desirable, as well as how much ammo you can carry before they decided to go to the .223 (5.56 mm).

          I think there was a lot of complaining because the .223 was not capable of going through thick cover as well as the AK round was.

    2. The supposed genesis of the term “assault rifle” came from Adolf Hitler when he was shown the prototypes of the MP 44 (Maschinenpistole – machine pistol year 1944) and he exclaimed “Das ist ein sturm gewehr” That is an assault rifle. The German military uses STG as the designation for such rifles after the MP 44 was rechristened the STG 44.

      http://militaryhistory.about.c…../stg44.htm

      I imagine the term “assault weapons” is just an attempt to include more guns in the scary weapons class than just military rifles by gun banners.

      1. Just saw that on Youtube in a video about the Battle of the Bulge, of which today is the 70th anniversary of its start.

  36. Which Bushmaster are they suing? The company has changed hands many times I believe. When I bought one in the early 90s to thumb my nose at California’s assault weapons ban that was the original Bushmaster claiming to have government contracts and I think they were in Maine. The company was small enough that you could talk to the owner. I don’t know if they still have a factory in Maine.

    1. Oh, looks like it’s owned by Cerberus Capital Management? the leftists are going to have a field day.

  37. “”the issue in this case will be whether courts are willing to construe the doctrine of negligent entrustment so broadly as to encompass a theory of liability that is based on the sale of a particular gun to the general public instead of to a potentially particular dangerous individual.”

    Well if you hold the liberal assumption that all people are “potentially dangerous” at all times, armed or not, and cannot be trusted, it makes total sense. The sale of any gun to a person of any kind is thus “negligent entrustment”.

  38. Thanks for sharing. We have a lot of depression and anxiety in our family. As a church, I think it’s important to mention those things to help others know it’s ok. It’s helpful to go to counseling and anyone can suffer with depression sometimes. Thanks for your honesty and sharing.
    Try it, you won t regret it! …… http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  39. Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Wall Street Journal “there is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons that [it] is no longer reasonable to entrust them to [civilians].”

    FUCK. YOU. WITH A RUSTY CHAINSAW.

    I hope someone shoots this asshole with a musket.

    1. Crossbow.

      1. Evan better.

        +1 Darryl Dixon

    2. Colt 6902.

  40. Self defense with an Ar-15 Carbine is certainly a legitimate use. A carbine is a good self defense tool, particular with small fragmentation (55gr.) rounds.

    1. So is recreation.

  41. “Black Guns are icky and should be banned.”
    That pretty much sums up the legal theory of Dennis Henigan and the rest of the Gun-Grabbers when it comes to “assault weapons”.

  42. I think I can write the NRA’s “Friend of the court” brief here:

    “Give us a f-ing break”

  43. I agree with the lawsuit. There is no legitimate civilian use for a direct impingement .223 caliber semi-auto rifle. Folks should metroculate towards piston driven and/or .30 caliber.

  44. The language used by the lawsuit and the comments made display gross ignorance about firearms. The only difference between a “sporting” semi-automatic rifle in .223 and the “assault” rifle in .223 is some plastic. No civilian rifle is automatic, they are all semi-automatic at best, meaning they fire one bullet for one pull of the trigger.

    I have one .22LR rifle that started life as a plain-jane Ruger 10-22, a gun that anyone not terrified of guns would say is a simple underpowered varmint hunting rifle.

    Replace $100 worth of plastic–keeping the barrel, magazine, and firing chamber (i.e., the pieces that make it a gun) but replacing the stock and adding a shroud around the barrel–and viola, it’s an “assault rifle”. It has *EXACTLY* the same rate of fire, *EXACTLY* the same # of bullets, and *EXACTLY* the same potential for harm but now must be banned because it is scary looking.

  45. This is a ridiculous lawsuit. The law was changed AFTER the massacre, and the families are just looking for their pound of flesh. I think the claim has no merit whatsoever,if they want to blame someone, blame the mother for not locking up the gun.But in this gynocentric country, you hold a woman accountable for anything.

    1. By the statement, it looks more like it’s not so much about the families trying to get their pound of flesh as it is gun-grabbers trying to find a way to use the courts to make an end run around the constitution. Imagine what would happen to gun manufacturing if the manufacturers could be held responsible for everyone who ends up being shot by one of their firearms. Criminal gets busted with a Hi Point. Hi Point gets sued. Criminal robs a store and you can see it’s a Glock on the CCTV. Glock gets sued. Police officer shoots a kid in the park with his S&W M&P9;. S&W gets sued. They’re hoping to game the system to create an environment in which gun manufacturers can’t exist (more likely will just jack up the prices of guns putting them out of reach of anybody but the rich or govt. Very progressive).

  46. “there is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons that [it] is no longer reasonable to entrust them to [civilians].”

    There must be hundreds, if not thousands of cases since this tragedy, of civilians using these types of guns to defend themselves. I know of at least a couple, just in my local area.

    How do you balance lives that are lost or saved against each other?

    1. That and the “gun with no legitimate civilian use” statement. Youtube is choke full of examples of civilians using these kinds of rifles as well as those that are even more restricted (automatics) legitimately.

  47. Not sure how you can call it negligent entrustment, when the rifle was stolen. I mean, the gun store owner sold it to the mother, not the son. And based on the statement from the lawyer, this whole things looks like a way to use this obscure and seems like a debatable quirk of the law to undo past supreme court rulings and the constitution itself which protects gun rights.

  48. So using the idiotic logic of the gun control freak parents and their numb skull lawyers, people should also be suing knife manufacturers, hammer manufacturers, car manufacturers etc. because, you know, those are used to kill people also.

  49. I looked at the paycheck which had said $7434 , I didn’t believe that my mom in-law realy bringing in money in their spare time at their computer. . there brothers friend has been doing this for only 16 months and just paid for the morgage on there place and bought a top of the range Aston Martin DB5 .
    You can join just easy ——- http://www.jobsfish.com

  50. I guess I’ll have to replace my scary looking flash suppressor with a bayonet.

  51. Since I started with my online business I earn $42 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    == w?w?w.?w?a?l?l?e?t?w?i?k?i?.C?o?m?

  52. Valerie `s posting is shocking… on saturday I bought a great new Jaguar XJ after I been earnin $6211 this last four weeks an would you believe 10k this past month . it’s by-far my favourite-work I’ve ever done . I started this eight months/ago and immediately startad bringin home over $71… per hour .
    am impresses but join this site and earn money easily.
    _________________ http://www.jobs700.com

  53. Forensic proof: Rifle WASN’T used at Sandy Hoax.
    http://ppsimmons.blogspot.ca/2…..malls.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.