From Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership: http://jpfo.org/alerts2016/alert20160419.htm?awt_l=JlhDw&awt_m=Ii1QZfcJx_Zn_P
By Tim Schmidt – USCCA Founder
Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled Thursday that “a lawsuit can go forward against the maker of the rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings,” rejecting the “argument that a 2005 federal law can protect gun businesses from civil lawsuits.”
Families of several children killed in the Newtown attack and one surviving teacher are suing Remington Arms, parent company of Bushmaster Firearms, who manufactured the weapon — a Bushmaster AR-15 – used by Adam Lanza in the school shooting.
According to The Washington Examiner, the basis of the families’ suit is that “the military-style gun should have never been available for civilians to purchase.”
Although lawyers for Remington Arms sought to dismiss the lawsuit, Bellis ruled that Remington’s argument “that the federal law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products…would be best made in a motion later in the process and is not grounds to dismiss the lawsuit.”
Regardless of the outcome, this is a devastating blow to the firearms industry and — quite frankly — a blatant attempt by anti-gunners to put firearms manufacturers out of business, thus denying millions of responsible Americans their God-given right to keep and bear arms.
Listen, I agree 100% that a company should be held responsible for the product or products they produce — when those products are utilized as intended. But holding a company liable for the inappropriate or unethical use of that product or products? That’s dangerous territory — no matter what industry we’re talking about.
It’s one thing if there’s a manufacturing defect that causes death or great bodily harm. (Think Toyota’s “unintended acceleration” problem a few years back.) But if a product functions as it should…and someone uses it to do harm … well, that’s an entirely different story. And that’s the real issue here.
Listen, Toyota isn’t liable if someone chooses to drive his or her car into a building filled with people. So why should firearms manufacturers be treated any differently? (Except, of course, that it’s a desperate shifting of the blame in the anti-gunners’ attempt to feel like they’re “doing something.”)
Continue reading at: http://jpfo.org/alerts2016/alert20160419.htm?awt_l=JlhDw&awt_m=Ii1QZfcJx_Zn_P