|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Doctors Want Court to Reinstate Suit Against Gun Maker in Sandy Hook Massacre
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A group of doctors who treated mass shooting victims is asking the state Supreme Court to reinstate a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
Lawyers for the 10 doctors said Tuesday that they planned to file a friend-of-the-court brief asking the justices to overturn a lower-court decision in October that dismissed the lawsuit against Remington Outdoor Co., of Madison, North Carolina. They said makers of military-style rifles should be held liable for injuries the rifles cause, a claim Remington contested. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/17/2017)
|
This is nothing more than an attempt by liberals to shut down gun manufacturers by sueing them out of business.
The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook massacre was a certified crazy person on the Federal gun purchase prohibition list. Therefor, he was under the care of doctors at some point. Maybe those doctors should be added to the lawsuit for failing to recognize the danger the miscreant was to society. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/17/2017)
|
| Did the maker of the firearm pull the trigger? |
| Comment by:
laker1
(3/17/2017)
|
| The Doctors believe that the trigger pulled the finger. Doctors kill many more than illegal use of guns. Therefore Doctors need to focus on healing thy own. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/17/2017)
|
In 1939 the SCOTUS ruled in U.S. v. Miller that absent evidence it could not take judicial notice that the sawed-off shotgun at issue was within the ambit of Second Amendment protection because:
1) It wasn't "in common use".
2) It could not "contribute to the common defense".
3) It had no "reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia".
4) It was not "any part of the ordinary military equipment".
In other words, there is a right to bear weapons that meet these criteria, i.e. military-pattern small arms, protected by the Second Amendment.
The doctors' main argument fails facially, and federal law exempts manufacturers from liability for the criminal acts of the end-user.
|
|
|
