|
|
|
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:
CT: Court rules gun makers can be sued over Sandy Hook massacre
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The firearms industry suffered a major setback Thursday when a Connecticut court ruled families who lost children in the Sandy Hook massacre can sue the gun maker — a breakthrough one dad said he’s been waiting for.
“My son was killed in a shooting in a school so I can’t use words like excited or happy because I’m here for a terrible tragedy. I’m just glad the case is moving forward,” Ian Hockley told the Herald.
Hockley, father of 6-year-old Dylan Hockley who was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, said the court’s judgement has allowed families to continue fighting. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/15/2019)
|
| Laws. Laws! We don't care about any silly laws. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
