U.S. News | Latest National News, Videos & Photos

#

RRelated Posts

CComments

  • Charles Johnston

    A shotgun was used in that awful New Zealand shooting. So, a semiautomatic shotgun isn't something civilians can shoot? Same kind of carnage. The families are still undoubtedly grieving, angry and upset. But the weapon chosen is moot. They are just cash grabbing now. Banning an AR won't keep schools safer.

  • Daniel Roberts

    The truth of the matter is that Remington is moving to Alabama and taking all of that tax revenue with them . That is the real matter at hand .

  • ANSISdotORG

    So why should vaccine makers get immunity when they kill and maim the people, but a company who manufactures a gun not even used in the shooting in the first place gets sued over what somebody else did?

    Stupid world we live in. It is no longer about right and wrong, it is about using the courts and the media to push the big governments communist agenda.

  • Karla1953

    It will be thrown out with prejudice as soon as the appeal hits federal courts, because federal law explicitly prohibits suits like these. Sadly those that think this Judge just did something swell, will be let down once again. The judge more than likely already knows this, but they will be reelected because....

  • Nakedzulu

    This is an unspeakable tragedy for all concerned. That said, I just bought my brother a T-shirt that says the following: If guns kill people I guess cars drive drunk, pencils misspell words and spoons make people fat.

  • Brandon Jones

    This is a waste of time but at the very least the families will get the opportunity to force manufacturers of firearms to justify their sales methods. The families will have an opportunity to try and prove their case but will ultimately lose in the end. SCOTUS will overturn any rewards for the defendant probably by a unanimous decision.

  • Ed Fritz

    Gun manufacturers want to be immune to lawsuits for weapons they label as "Assault style" weapons. Now, here in America, where does any citizen need to perform an "Assault style" shooting?!? And, which "Assault style" mass shootings are considered legal, sport or self defense?!?

    Now, if a car manufacturer made a car called an "Assault style killing machine", it has blades, spikes and chain saws all over it and is obviously built for the purpose of killing large amounts of people easily. They sell it under the guise of "self defense driving", but they market it specifically to ex-military and people with mental conditions and/or violent tendencies. It even comes in camouflage or special ops black. Then when innocent people are murdered with their car they claim they aren't responsible for how customers use their "assault style death machine" vehicles that were specifically designed to do exactly what just happened. Now, do you think they would be immune to the law because they say their assault style death machine was used inappropriately by a customer? I think not! So, why should gun manufacturers be immune to the exact same situation?

  • Xwingfighter1138

    Not sure how a sitting judge is incapable of reading existing laws and case precedents.
    Judges who engage in active Lawfare against political enemies need to be disbarred.
    When people feel safe, they buy fewer guns. So how do we help people feel safe? That is how problems are solved, not by outright prohibition. There I said it- prohibition.

  • OceanwalkSurfer

    For the sake of clarity, it is an "assault-style" rifle. Also, does this mean auto manufacturers that make high-performance cars that run almost 200 MPH be sued if someone dies because of the car?

  • BIABx2

    Was the stupid mother’s assets seized and liquidated to pay the family’s that her child murdered?

  • Del Capslock

    The NRA is not happy, but they should be. If such lawsuits have no merit, they should be encouraged to come forward and be decided as expected. This will set precedent, strengthening the position of gun manufacturers against future actions. So what is the NRA afraid of?