Not sure if this has been posted yet :eek:

 
Messages
4,851
Reactions
12,260
This might go so far beyond the recent Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that the USSC will take it up after the 9th affirms it, even though the USSC declined to hear the CT case.
 
Messages
17,563
Reactions
41,695
Ist this like trying to make ford liable for drunk drivers?
Yes but that matters not. The idea with stuff like this is to get someone to pay to "go away". The Co's have to pay lawyers all the way through this. When it comes to guns often the people doing it do not care if they ever get paid to go away, they want to cause harm. Other times crap like this the people in the law office are just hoping to be paid to go away. Bottom line all the gun owners pay for this.
 
Messages
6,824
Reactions
17,598
Started reading the order linked in the article -- right off the bat the judge misstates the differences between full auto and semi-auto versions:

As the Vietnam War wound down, AR-15 manufacturers turned to the civilian market. Rather than design a new weapon, the manufacturers removed the selector switch from the AR-15. Redesign was cost-prohibitive, while removal of the selector switch was cost-effective and allowed marketing of the weapon’s military bona fides. ...

They didn't merely change the selector -- the internal cavity is milled differently, the necessary holes aren't drilled, the bolt carrier is different, there are extra parts, and of course as mentioned, the selector is different.
 
Messages
6,824
Reactions
17,598
This decision is potentially quite frightening. If it is determined that any semi-auto AR-15 can be easily modified to be fully automatic via the use of a bumpstock (*):

The defendants argue in reply, and repeatedly stated in oral argument, that the Parsons are asking me to “make hundreds of thousands of United States citizens who lawfully manufactured, sold, purchased, and/or possessed AR-type rifles felons overnight.”

This case deserves monitoring -- as big as the issue of suing firearms manufacturers out of existence is, the potential to make many millions of firearms illegal is also a huge threat.

(*) I still don't understand how a bump stock is a statutory "machine gun", which is: "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." We all know a bump stock only works by multiple presses of the trigger, a detail the decision is completely silent about.
 
Messages
998
Reactions
1,120
This decision is potentially quite frightening. If it is determined that any semi-auto AR-15 can be easily modified to be fully automatic via the use of a bumpstock (*):



This case deserves monitoring -- as big as the issue of suing firearms manufacturers out of existence is, the potential to make many millions of firearms illegal is also a huge threat.

(*) I still don't understand how a bump stock is a statutory "machine gun", which is: "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." We all know a bump stock only works by multiple presses of the trigger, a detail the decision is completely silent about.


The ATF ruled what was it twice that bump stocks were not machine guns and thus legal to own, prior to Las Vegas?

So now if this holds true, let's sue Ford, GM, and others for drunk drivers. They know people will drive drunk, so they should have breathalyzer's built into all cars, to prevent drunk driving.

Since Jack Daniels made the booze we need to sue them also, oh and the state who profited from the sale of the booze, and the actual seller.
 
Messages
3,484
Reactions
9,572
If this goes forward, won't they finally need to prove ballistics match? Or is all that now a foregone - and unsubstantiated conclusion...?
From everything I have tried to find (And try I did) No projectiles recovered have conclusively been matched to any of his 20 some-odd rifles by the Nevada ME...
20+ rifles? Why?
And Tracer Ammo? Really??? Who saw - or would use - tracer ammo as a sniper?
 
Messages
17,563
Reactions
41,695
Started reading the order linked in the article -- right off the bat the judge misstates the differences between full auto and semi-auto versions:



They didn't merely change the selector -- the internal cavity is milled differently, the necessary holes aren't drilled, the bolt carrier is different, there are extra parts, and of course as mentioned, the selector is different.
This is another great example of the propaganda that has been run by the people who want to control people. Even to this day I still run into people who are not really "anti gun" but, they tell me the AR is "not needed". They will repeat this same line, that its just a simple task to make one a machine gun. When I tell them they have been mislead many of them look at me not sure if I am lying to them. They have been told so many times that the AR's are really a machine gun that just needs one part to be full auto again. Many of them would not know how to even load an AR so they have no idea they have been lied to. :s0054:
 
Messages
894
Reactions
1,836
So much wrong with this biased judge's ruling ...

"But in his order, Gordon found that the Parsons had pleaded facts showing alleged causation because the use of modified AR-15s in a mass shooting was “reasonably foreseeable.”

No - it was not reasonably foreseeable. Never happened before in the US, multiple unique aspects.

"He compared the danger of AR-15s to that of machine guns, which prompted the creation of the National Firearms Act banning the fully automatic weapons."

The National Firearms Act DID NOT ban automatic weapons. It imposed a registration and tax stamp requirement.

“The Parsons plead facts showing that the defendants’ AR-15s could be easily modified with bump stocks to shoot automatically, which the shooter did with tragic results. So the Parsons have sufficiently alleged causation,” Gordon wrote."

No, bump stocks do not shoot automatically, they merely facilitate rapid single action firing - which remains one bullet expended for one pull on the trigger, not automatic by (legal) definition.

As others commented and this helps illustrate - this will be tossed faster than a speeding train.
 
Messages
4,318
Reactions
6,549
I certainly Hope somebody, maybe many somebodies take this one ALL th to the Supremes. The next thing you know the Lawyers are going to be taking Ford and Dodge and any other car maker to court because of p Drunk Driver killed someone. As it is there already too many law suits happening because people won't take responsibility for their actions.
 
There is no difference in the logic applied in that story to this scenario:

Dodge made a consumer grade car but gave access to performance racing parts through their Mopar Performance Parts. It is reasonably foreseeable that any Dodge owner can or will convert their car from a street legal kid hauler to a race-car and will attempt to race it on the street. So when John Doe did just that and crashed his car into a group of students crossing the street, well, Dodge is ultimately at fault for negligence by providing the means for Mr. Doe to build his own street illegal race car.

This sort of ruling seems to be a very slippery slope down a hill for nothing more than political posturing/gain.
 
Messages
2,562
Reactions
5,593
What about suing the Mandalay Bay hotel for renting him a room. Or the taxi company that got him to the hotel. Or the airline that flew him there. I guessing he ate while he was there so had he not eaten, he would have been too weak to go on a shooting spree so there's another opportunity. This is outright insanity. These out of work lawyers are looking for anything to make a buck on....
 
Messages
15,330
Reactions
33,150
I am wondering where the concept of "reasonably foreseable" appears/applies in negligence suits. Is this something Gordon dreamed up, or is it the current standard?

And how does "reasonably foreseable" invalidate the protection law afforded to firearms makers?

IMO this is a very dangerous standard:

1. It is reasonably foreseeable that I could modify my 10/22, or my Glock, to full auto.
2. It is reasonably foreseeable that I could use my kitchen knives in a murder spree.
3. It is reasonably foreseeable that I would abuse medication prescribed to me.
4. It is reasonably foreseeable that I would not raise my kids to be sheeple.
5. It is reasonably foreseeable that I run over my kid's foot with my lawnmower.
6. It is reasonably foreseeable that I would cut myself using a razor.
7. It is reasonably foreseeable that I would fall off a ladder or a roof.
8. All the things I might do with a car...
9. And on and on...
 
Last Edited:

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top