Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire When will sanity return?

No kidding no sense in leaving them out! And where was the gas bought that powered the car? Might as well get the the station owner, the company and the refinery.

I don't believe there will be an out of court settlement.

The parties involved have no chance of losing based on the premise that "the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for civilian use."

It was a legal weapon that was legally sold. There's no illegality or negligence involved.

And ... if they settle that would open up the potential for future lawsuits which outweighs the risk of loss (attorney/legal costs) in this one case.

Well I'll predict it will go no where.
If the maker settles, guess what that will open up for the future.

Beat me too it there anchoviehhead

Frankly I wouldn't mind it if the attornies invloved were Censured for bringing frivolous lawsuits............

Let me know how that works out Keith...

They should be required to pay all of the defendant's cost along with a penalty of 10X cost.

i really doubt that.

Highly unlikely.

Motions to dismiss for lack of causation and engaging in legal trade will be first.

Trial after that.

In the unlikely event the plaintiffs win, there will be appeals for years.

Prediction - these lawyers likely were hired and are paid for by political interests such as Bloomberg and his co-conspirators to wage an economic war on manufacturers and vendors.




Depending on the law of that state, and the law under which the brought suit, it might be possible. The local shop probably was added to create a lack of diversity of the parties, and thus prevent removal to federal court.

"Loser pay" rules were adopted in Florida in one point and then later repealed as it turned out that most cases were meritorious, and the plaintiffs were recovering their attorneys fees more often than the defendants. So, insurance and corporate interests sought repeal of the rule as it only increased the amount they lost.

Most courts have the inherent power to sanction attorneys for frivolous lawsuits. The standard for frivolous is no basis in law taking the facts at face value. This one might be a candidate.

link

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act probably stops the suit dead in its tracks. If the firearm functions as designed, and if the manufacturer did not break any laws in how the firearm was distributed to the public, then nobody in the distribution chain is liable.

The original question, when will sanity return, presumes that we once had sanity.

I wouldn't doubt that a bit

I'm not a lawyer but from what little I know ...

There is a chance that if this goes to trial and the plantiffs lose that there could be a suit filed to recoup attorney fees for filing a malicious lawsuit.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act probably stops the suit dead in its tracks. If the firearm functions as designeda, and if the manufacturer did not break any laws in how the firearm was distributed to the public, then nobody in the distribution chain is liable."

And ...

"these lawyers likely were hired and are paid for by political interests such as Bloomberg and his co-conspirators to wage an economic war on manufacturers and vendors."

Filing a lawsuit that's based on fraudulent accusations (no legal precedent) with the intent of financially harming a defendant is the definition (partly) of a malicious and frivolous lawsuit.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

like that mooslem dude in australia....


his former lawyer, Manny Conditsis, told Australian Broadcasting Corp. "His ideology is just so strong and so powerful that it clouds his vision for common sense and objectiveness."

Correct on all points I'm afraid.

We need more defined and certain penalties for bringing such suits. Monetary sanctions on plaintiffs and attorneys who take on actions like this are one answer.

My late father, the attorney, often said there are three azzholes in every suit.

1. Plaintiff
2. Plaintiff's attorney
3. Defendant

He defined practicing law as "Azzhole #1 takes money away from azzhole #3, and I'm the azzhole who does it for him."

If this is a pic of the rifle used....it's a "post-ban" gun....no folding stock, no flash hider, no bayo lug.

This is from Dave Hardy, prominent 2A attorney.

The two things that stick out in my mind are "I can't see it as filed in good faith", and "risks a court awarding sanctions to the defendants." This second point sounds like something considerably in excess of attorney's fees, which would almost automatically be sought by the defendants.

They aren't suing because of who sold it to who. They're going all the way to the top in claiming that this type of rifle shouldn't be sold at all. It appears to me that their goal is to outlaw black rifles entirely, circumventing the 2d.

Conveniently neglecting the fact that the AR15 is not a military rifle at all. It just looks like one, as do a number of 22LR rifles.

They will get countersued, and likely get sanctioned for wasting the time of the court with a malicious and frivolous suit.

They should be ashamed of themselves.