Avatar feed
Responses: 11
PO2 Mark Saffell
6
6
0
Time to kick this judge out.
(6)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Psychological Operations Officer
3
3
0
The judge didn't rule that the case was viable under the federal law. She just ruled that she has the authority to hear the case. All the arguments about whether or not the case can be heard are yet to come. All those little legal nuances that the article makes fun of are actually important, and judges can't ignore them. Just like this week when the SCOTUS spent a lot of time during the hearing on the immigration case as to whether Texas even had the standing to bring the case, rather than the merits of the case.

"A Connecticut judge ruled yesterday that a closely watched lawsuit filed by families of victims killed at Newtown, Ct.'s Sandy Hook Elementary School against the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle used in the 2012 massacre can proceed. The victims’ legal team declared the decision a “huge victory,” but experts say the ruling is relatively narrow, and does not address the biggest hurdle for the plaintiffs: surmounting a decade-old law that shields gun manufacturers from most liability claims, reports The Trace. Judge Barbara Bellis decided only that she has the authority to continue to hear the case, not whether the lawsuit is viable under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)."
(3)
Comment
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Cpl Mark McMiller
8 y
LTC (Join to see) Actually the Judge does have the authority to dismiss the case because the Plaintiffs' arguments are bullshit, and the Judge knows it. By allowing the case to go to trial, the Judge is subjecting the gun manufacturers to financial ruin from attorneys fees and costs, and she knows it. Just another dishonest, liberal, anti-gun judge trying to further her agenda of gun control.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Psychological Operations Officer
LTC (Join to see)
8 y
Cpl Mark McMiller - actually, there are exceptions stated in the law that allow the gun manufacturers to be sued when certain circumstances exist. The judge ruled that it was too early in the process to simply dismiss the case without consideration of whether the exception the plaintiffs believe exist applies in the law. But she hasn't ruled that the case will go to trial. The defense will still be able to make a motion to show that the exception is not valid, and the judge can then make the decision about whether a trial is permitted under the law.

So despite what everyone is getting so worked up about, the judge hasn't ignored the law nor ruled that the gun manufacturers don't have immunity.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Cpl Mark McMiller
8 y
LTC (Join to see) - None of the exceptions exist in this case.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Warren Swan
2
2
0
I see this differently. Have to look at it a different way. If the Judge allows the case to proceed, it forces the higher courts who would've been appealed to in the end a chance to weigh in and give a precedence that could be used. Not sure what the Judge was thinking otherwise, but it's a good play. I believe it is a frivolous lawsuit and it might make it to the High Court where it'll be smacked down. Sandy Hook is and will be an eternal unfortunate event, but those involved need to heal, not heal through the tough talk of money their lawyers are looking at. I don't see it as an attempt on 2A. There are no credible attempts at 2A since Clinton was in office. Even Obama who has had to send out apologizes to families killed by assault STYLE weapons hasn't tried to take them away, just add more redundant checks that make it more of a PITA, but even he knows he couldn't get any kind of repeal to stick. Hell he hasn't even made an attempt to make magazines smaller for these weapons, but your state governments have. Before we get into the liberal vs. conservative thing, remember New Jersey is helmed by a "Super Conservative Republican" Governor. It also has some REALLY ignorant gun laws that you'd think would be seen in Blue states. When I see NRA talking about Obama and 2A, I click next.....Obama has been the BEST thing to EVER happen to weapons manufactures since the implementation of the War Dept.
(2)
Comment
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
PO2 Mark Saffell
8 y
I cant agree with the cost to taxpayers by letting this case go forward nor do I think it is acceptable for a judge to ignore the law even if he is trying to get it to a higher court. His job is to enforce the law, NOT break it whenever he has a pet project. How can he now judge a person for breaking a law if he himself has? To many he has taken his authority to judge and flushed down a toilet. He has NO RIGHT to judge me if he broke the law.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SSG Warren Swan
8 y
PO2 Mark Saffell - I see what you mean, BUT no matter what his ruling would have been, it would've been INSTANTLY appealed to the next higher court. So why not just give them an avenue to do just that and get it over with? The SCOTUS has thousands of cases brought to them each year just to pick less than ten? This should be settled once and for all if it reaches their level.....
(1)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Cpl Mark McMiller
8 y
PO2 Mark Saffell - This is civil court so there is no cost to taxpayers. It will financially ruin the defendant gun manufacturers from attorney fees and costs. You are correct about the Judge's duties.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close