4
4
0
I post this not to discuss if this was a false flag or not, but based on the parents suing a gun-maker. Should this be allowed? Should we sue the makers of alcohol for drunk drivers? Should we sue the makers of automobiles for vehicular homicide?
Why Sandy Hook parents are suing a gun-maker
Posted from click2houston.com
Gun Control
Rifles
Murder
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
They can sue all they want however, there is a Federal Law (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) that prevents them from moving forward.
The "negligent entrustment" argument is just a bad legal argument. The Sandy Hook weapons were purchased LEGALLY. They are NOT "military style weapons." They are .223 caliber rifles which function in much the same way as other semi-automatic weapons (pull the trigger, 1 bullet is fired).
The people who use "military style weapons" as an argument do not understand what a Military Weapon is, and what a Legal Civilian Firearm is, nor their differences.
A valid argument for "negligent entrustment" would be that the dealer did not do a background check on the purchaser (they did) or that the owner did not safeguard the weapon adequately (debatable). The Manufacturer & Dealer are removed from the second instance however because it was a LEGALLY OWNED CIVILIAN FIREARM.
Note: Former Gun Dealer.
The "negligent entrustment" argument is just a bad legal argument. The Sandy Hook weapons were purchased LEGALLY. They are NOT "military style weapons." They are .223 caliber rifles which function in much the same way as other semi-automatic weapons (pull the trigger, 1 bullet is fired).
The people who use "military style weapons" as an argument do not understand what a Military Weapon is, and what a Legal Civilian Firearm is, nor their differences.
A valid argument for "negligent entrustment" would be that the dealer did not do a background check on the purchaser (they did) or that the owner did not safeguard the weapon adequately (debatable). The Manufacturer & Dealer are removed from the second instance however because it was a LEGALLY OWNED CIVILIAN FIREARM.
Note: Former Gun Dealer.
(5)
(0)
SPC(P) Jay Heenan
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
First of all, well said!
I would argue that since he killed him Mom first, the 'safeguarding of the weapon' is a moot point. Once she was murdered, it wouldn't matter how safeguarded the weapon was, he would have access to whatever he wanted.
First of all, well said!
I would argue that since he killed him Mom first, the 'safeguarding of the weapon' is a moot point. Once she was murdered, it wouldn't matter how safeguarded the weapon was, he would have access to whatever he wanted.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
While it is very said with what happened they are focusing on one thing to blame. That AR-15 would have set for hundreds of years if no one had touched that gun and killed no one.
Why would you not sue the school that did not protect it students. They made it a gun free zone, effectively making it easy to kill without any opposition.
Why not sue the state for not providing mental heath treatment for the shooter?
Why not sue the kids mom for buying guns and then allowing him to get them?
I am sure they were anti gun before the shooting and now they are going to use their dead child as a flag to promote their agenda.
Why would you not sue the school that did not protect it students. They made it a gun free zone, effectively making it easy to kill without any opposition.
Why not sue the state for not providing mental heath treatment for the shooter?
Why not sue the kids mom for buying guns and then allowing him to get them?
I am sure they were anti gun before the shooting and now they are going to use their dead child as a flag to promote their agenda.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It is crap, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was put in place to protect companies from liability for what individuals do with their products. Thinking of the ramifications if this type of lawsuit was allowed, now that is scary.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google