|
|
|
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 |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
