It seems that the courts will act when legislators, influenced by NRA lobbying, refuse to do so.
Connecticut’s highest state court overturned a lower court decision and concluded that the families of those murdered in the Sandy Hook massacre of 2012 may sue the manufacturer of the gun used in the killings.
“Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle can be sued and potentially held liable in connection with the 2012 mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
“The groundbreaking decision overturned a lower-court ruling barring the lawsuit, which was brought by the estates of nine victims killed by Adam Lanza, who was armed with the high-powered rifle during his assault on the school. Bushmaster is owned by Remington.
“The families argued, among other things, that the rifle’s manufacturer and distributor negligently allowed and encouraged civilians to use a weapon suitable only for military and law enforcement use.
“The firearms company had convinced a lower court that a federal law enacted in 2005 limited the liability of firearms manufacturers and dealers, essentially preempting wrongful death suits in state and federal courts.
“The Connecticut high court disagreed. It also said the suit, which seeks unspecified damages for each death, could go forward under that state’s Unfair Trade Practices Law.
“Twenty first-grade children and 6 adults were killed and two others wounded in the attack on Dec. 14, 2012. The Bushmaster that Lanza used had been sold to his mother, according to court documents.
“The number of lives lost in those 264 seconds was made possible by the shooter’s weapon of choice,” the plaintiffs said in their lawsuit. “Plaintiffs seek nothing more and nothing less than accountability” for Bushmaster’s choice to “continue profiting” from selling and marketing the weapon for civilian use, the suit said.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If bankruptcy law permits. Bushmaster will declare bankruptcy and escape paying the penalty.
This suit is ludicrous. Blaming guns for killing, is like blaming pencils for misspelled words.
The Supreme Court of Conn. does not agree with you.
When you sell a deadly weapon,there is a duty of care that goes with it.
You’re misunderstanding the point of the suit. It’s not blaming guns for killing, nor does it blame the manufacturer for producing the guns, offering them for sale, or simply advertising them. Rather, it’s directed specifically at the manner in which the weapons were marketed, apparently directed at individuals who are likely to view the gun as compensation for some deficiency. I expect court case will explore issues such as demographics targeted by particular ads, as well as the likelihood of Mr. Lanza having seen such ads.
Charles, I do not think the blame for all those six-year-olds being murdered is being put on the firearm, that AR-15.
The blame is rolling downhill to the humans that made those firearms, and if the shooter/s is/are still alive them too.
It’s that INC. that made those AR-15s that will lose money and maybe go out of business. The firearms don’t lose any money. The greedy bastards that made fortunes from those weapons are the ones that will pay.
For instance, we don’t blame the drugs that caused the Opioid Epidemic that has killed more than 200,000 people, that the Sackler family is responsible for producing and promoting.
The courts are punishing the Sackler family and the Inc. that produced the drugs — not the drug.
Whenever we hear or see someone throw out the defense “Blaming guns for killing, is like blaming pencils for misspelled words,” it is repeating a logical fallacy that fake media like FOX news reported. That is spiked language.
Firearms cannot kill anyone without help from a human finger that is attached to a living human just like the opioid drugs the Sacklers produced and promoted as safe cannot be blamed and punished for killing people.
In all murders/deaths, there is a human element and that is who we blame, not the drug or the firearm.
“Blaming guns for killing” is a logical fallacy defense that humans are using to deflect the blame from them to a concrete object, the firearm so ignorant, easy to fool people will dismiss it since we can’t punish a firearm.
No one is going to send the firearm that was used to murder someone to prison. No one is going to lock up bottles filled with Sackler produced opioids.
If convicted, the people that are responsible for producing those firearms and drugs will be the ones that are punished.
What is next? A person gets drunk. He gets in a vehicle. He has a head on collision with a school bus full of children. Then the vehicle manufacturer gets sued!
The analogy doesn’t work
A gun is a weapon
A bus is not
Your digression is flawed logic and a common tactic from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Hannity to change the subject because you don’t have logic on your side.
A person gets drunk and hits a school bus – you don’t sue the school bus manufacturer. The school bus company had nothing to do with the drunk getting drunk.
You follow the chain from the drunk to the bar or store where he bought/consumed the booze and then the company that produced the booze and they all pay because they are all guilty of making and selling a mind-altering product that everyone knows is stupid to consume in the first place because drinking too much and then driving can lead to accidents and deaths.
And here is a law in some states that supports what I’m talking about.
Dram Shop Laws: Bar Owner Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents
In some cases, the owner of a bar, restaurant, tavern or other establishment can be sued if an intoxicated patron causes a car accident.
The Legal Standards in Dram Shop Cases
Generally, a plaintiff in a third party dram shop case need only prove that the defendant bar was negligent. Proving negligence in a dram shop case generally boils down to proving that the bartenders/servers continued to served a patron that they knew or reasonably should have known was drunk.
Some states allow for enhanced damages if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions were reckless. A reckless action is more “unreasonable” than a negligent action. A reckless action is when a person knew or should have known that his or her action was likely to be unreasonably safe and went ahead and did that action anyway. Plaintiffs in a first party dram shop case often don’t have a choice; they generally have to prove that the defendant bar acted recklessly.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/auto-accident/dram-shop-laws.html
How many pencil massacres have we had in the past decade? How many massacres by guns, especially semi-automatic guns/rifles? I blame these types of guns for enabling mass murder over and over. Pencils not so much. If this were a sane country, we would have banned all semi-automatic weapons, PERIOD!
Well, Karl Marx sure got a lot of blame for acts done his name that killed a whole lot of people. Acts he neither would have condoned or supported but were blamed on his pencil. You know, by the same people who use these specious arguments to justify mass killing because of a complete misreading of the history behind and abuse of the 2nd amendment. So until I see reactionaries like Chuckie admit that Marx had no connection to the atrocities claimed in his name disassociate themselves from those arguments, I’m really not interested in their contortions about absolving the manufacturers of mass killing and their grotesque manipulation of penis envy.
The suit does not “blame guns for killing.” Nor does it blame gun mfrs when buyers use their products for illegal purposes– gun-makers have immunity there by fed law. The suit is about marketing guns for illegal purposes.
“In its ruling, the court said companies that market military-style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies could be violating state fair trade laws.
“’The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,’” the court said, explaining why the federal law does not apply.”
Poor analogy. It’s more like blaming social media for your stupid ass comment.
Why don’t we sue the dead mother of the murderer? Makes about as much sense. She allowed the kid to STEAL a legal gun, knowing that he was mentally disturbed. She and those children and teachers paid the price for her lack of responsibility and due diligence. There are other semi automatic weapons available that could have been used with the same results. this was a legal gun in a tough gun control state. The AR-15 being available to only police and the military has not been determined.
Why don’t you place more blame on drug use and mental health issues ?
April,
Do you feel OK about anyone of any age and mental condition getting easy access to military style weapons?
If you read the report about the decision, it was about the fact that the manufacturer advertises the AR-15 for its killing capacity. It is not just a gun; it is a killing machine. Who goes deer hunting with an AR-15? Answer: no one. It is a machine for mass murder, intended for use in military situations.
Ads like the first one in this article, offering explicitly to reinforce the gun buyer’s manhood (“Consider your manhood reissued.” — why? was it revoked? expired?), are directed toward damaged, disturbed individuals like Lanza.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bushmaster-advertised-semiautomatic-used-in-connecticut-massacre-2012-12
There are about 37,000 motor vehicle fatalities a year in the US, should the law allow legal liability for the auto manufacturers, beyond standard liability for defects? After all, cars and trucks are known to be dangerous products.
I am very anti-gun and it wouldn’t bother me if guns were all banned, but I don’t think this legal strategy makes sense.
Do car manufacturers advertise their cars as killing machines? No. Remington advertises the Bushmaster as a killing machine.
(not on topic) Here is some good news! The congress is taking initiative to emphasize civics education in public schools.
Q On the federal level, Senators Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Angus King (I-Maine), and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced the Constitution Education Is Valuable in Community Schools (CIVICS) Act of 2019 to Congress, which would aim to “improve the quality of student achievement in, and teaching of, American history, civics, government, or geography in elementary and secondary schools,” as well as educate students about the history and principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. END Q
Here is the article:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2019/03/states_introduce_legislation_t.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news3&M=58767725&U=2306083&UUID=c1a94eac9c56535ae3317f0d8229d295
Chuckie, not on topic is what the “About” page of this blog is for. And this bill is window dressing, pure and simple. Inhofe would immediately withdraw his name if “Constitution Education” (how much more Orwellian do you want to get?) required a historically accurate teaching of the 2nd amendment.
People comment on the “About” page? That must be a terrifyingly long comment thread.
Hey Greg thanks for the info on “About” page, I always wondered how to intro found articles that might be of interest.
Meanwhile Charles I’m glad to know of that bill. Soc stud– & Sci, World Langs, Phys Ed– have taken a back seat to ELA/Math test-prep in many states. Bills like this can only help in the pushback against NCLB/ESSA 3-8+11 hi-stakes testing.
Here’s my problem with all these “mandate teaching of this or that” bills. I thought we here generally supported teacher autonomy, teacher mentorship by master teachers, and strong engaged principals in schools. You know what? If we actually realized that, we’d have schools with well-rounded curricula that included English, math, civic education, the sciences, languages, physical education, vocational education, personal finance, and many other subjects that educators know are needed in all schools. We don’t need window dressing legislation that singles out the educational flavor of the month.
Here in Ohio, we have a venal, reactionary politician who used bills like this to highlight his “civility” and “nonpartisanship.” Meanwhile, when he as in the General Assembly, he used bills like this to hide his lockstep voting record for the most reactionary, party-line agenda possible. And he was elevated to the Secretary of State office after voting for charters and privatization, chaired the Individual-1 state inauguration celebration, and now has added Ken Blackwell and other voter suppressors as part of his advisory committee on his job, which includes supervising elections. The local university has also started a “civility” project that uses ones of his inane quotes on the top of the program’s home page. I suspect that happened after his wealthy beverage distributer family bought if for him, as they did everything else in his life.
In the case of this bill, I can already see Inhofe, when he is criticized for his reactionary record of denying science while he chairs the Senate Environment Committee and every other right wing agenda checklist item, saying, but hey, I’m a sponsor of a mandating Constitution Education in schools bill!
Okay, I’ll bite. Aren’t you the one who thinks the Feds should stay out of education? So how is it a good thing that they’re butting in here? Or is it a good thing when the Feds butt in as long as you agree with them, but a bad thing when you disagree? I’m so confused.
Thank you.
Let me explain it this way. I have read the federal constitution. I cannot elect to lay my finger on ANY federal role in education (in the constitution). The word “education” does not appear in the federal constitution.
I have advocated, and continue to advocate for the elimination of ANY federal role in education. I also advocate the abolishment of the federal Dept of Education. (Along with Pres Ronald Reagan, and many others)
I believe sincerely that as long as we have publicly-operated schools, that the operation and financing should begin and end at the state/municipal level. This ensures local control, and ends the intrusion of federal bureaucrats.
BUT- Our nation has chosen not to travel this path. We have an extensive federal role in education. This has advantages and disadvantages.
The feds have introduced all sorts of bad concepts, NCCB, Common Core, etc. All of these monstrosities carry the federal imprimatur.
However, even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while. This proposal to get civics and constitutional law into public schools, is a good idea. It has support all across the political spectrum.
In a perfect world, the states/municipalities would already be mandating a basic grounding in these subjects. The fact is that at least seven(7) states, are moving to enact legislation mandating exactly this .see:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2019/03/states_introduce_legislation_t.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news3&M=58767725&U=2306083&UUID=c1a94eac9c56535ae3317f0d8229d295
As to your question:
Yes, it is a BAD thing when the feds come up with bad ideas like common core, NCLB, mandatory testing, and other such bad ideas.
AND
Yes, it is a GOOD thing, when the feds come up with a good idea like mandating civics/constitutional law instruction.
There is no such thing as a “federal constitution.” It is called the Constitution, the Constitution of the United States of American, or the U.S. Constitution. It created the rules to create a federal government. Also, 230 years of legal scholarship, precedent, and history have affirmed over and over (did I write over?) again that the language of the Constitution has many implied powers and procedures. It’s really that simple, even for the simple-minded.
America, not American.
I approach this decision with some sadness. Not sadness because I like a gun manufacturer, but sadness that our elected officials have disinvest end themselves of the job of legislative action to solve societal problems. They would prefer executive action or court decision. We cannot elect legislators who seem to be able to compromise on rational laws that will help folks.
Not that this is new. Legislative inaction led to court decisions about bussing in the 1970s, arguably a strain on public schools that was too great. Conservative followers of the Gingrich revolution made legislative compromise a naughty word.
This all ends in tyranny.
It’s either the government or the gun company.
A new drug comes out. The FDA approves it (or not). We see the commercials with a whole minute of “do not take this drug with.. if you suffer from X don’t use this… side effects are…”
Your doctor prescribes medicine – the drug store only lets you get so many refills over time and restricts if you are taking other drugs that don’t mix.
Cigarette companies killed millions. The government says there has to be a label that says “these will kill you.” and they can’t advertise on tv.
All those car commercials say “professional drivers on a closed track – do not try this”
But guns – – billboards, newspapers, everywhere… no warnings, no restriction based on what might “not mix” (like mental illness), no prescription, no warning of side effects, no check to see how many guns you own, no waiting period to determine if you have a felony history, no pamphlet to lock them up, no license (like drivers license to prove you can operate it).
Yeh, yeh…”Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”
But WHY ARE THOSE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS and WHY ARE GUNS OF MASS DESTRUCTION available to all people?
Plane crash: Either pilot or human error or the plane. Either way – both are regulated, tested, monitored… Gun “crash?” No one is responsible?
Yeh – sue the b***ards.
Speaking of tobacco companies being forbidden to advertise on television.
Tonight, for the first time, I saw commercials for Roundup. That’s the Monsanto (which is now Bayer) weed killer used on American crops (large amounts of cancer-causing chemicals found in our breakfast cereals) proven to cause cancer, & should have been banned. They have paid out (millions, I suppose) in lawsuit(s). I have a friend whose husband has cancer due to Roundup.
Yet, now, they are advertising weed killers (for home consumers who, they suppose, don’t read, know nothing about Monsanto & will buy the product).
If Bayer loses big on Roundup suits they’re going to have a major case of Bayer’s remorse.
Another mass shooting! Overnight, at least 49 people were shot at a mosque in New Zealand. New Zealand has draconian firearms controls, and it is very difficult to obtain a firearm.
Maybe this shooting will impact the firearms debate in the USA.
Yeh – debate on “thoughts and prayers”
All you can see is a clueless national leader in the WH saying “oh, that’s just a small number of people in the cells” and giving rightwing nationalists/supremacists a signal that it is ok to slam people of color and attribute mass shootings to them.
That was a message to his “base” that “there are good people on all sides.”
No, there are not.