Page 39 of 39

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:50 pm
by Isgrimnur
WaPo
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.

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:35 pm
by LawBeefaroni
a weapon suitable only for military and law enforcement use.
It's not suitable for military use but regardless, there is nothing special about AR15s except being lightweigt and easy to operate. Is the argument that civilian firearms must be unwieldy and cumbersome?

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:16 pm
by LawBeefaroni
So it looks like he Connecticut court says that the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act supercedes the federal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The CUTPA is about advertising and marketing. The PLCAA is about liability of firearms manufacturers.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."
If Remington advertised and promoted criminal behavior, the ok.

This isn't about what an AR15 can or cannot do. It's about whether Remington made someone go on a murderous rampage with its marketing.

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:19 pm
by Isgrimnur
I'm sure that Hollywood loves that argument.

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:47 pm
by Smoove_B
Is it still too early to talk about gun laws? MSD Community Mourns Loss Of Recent Grad Who Took Her Own Life:
The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School community is mourning another loss. Sydney Aiello was a recent MSD graduate who was close friends with Meadow Pollack, one of the victims of the Parkland shooting.

Aiello’s mother said her daughter took her own life last weekend.

...

Aiello was described as a vibrant young woman who was focused on her grades and a joy to be around. Cara Aiello said her daughter was on campus the day of the shooting but not in Freshman Building. She said Sydney struggled with survivor’s guilt and was recently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Cara said Sydney struggled to attend college classes because she was afraid of being in a classroom and was often sad recently but never asked for help before she killed herself.

Cara hopes Sydney’s story can help save others.

Ryan Petty’s daughter, Alaina, died in the MSD shooting. He’s focused a lot of effort on suicide prevention since the Parkland tragedy, worried that traumatized teens might take their own lives.

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:15 pm
by Smoove_B
An alarming statistic from The American Journal of Medicine:
More children were shot dead in 2017 than on-duty police officers and active duty military

...
“It is sobering that in 2017, there were 144 police officers who died in the line of duty and about 1,000 active duty military throughout the world who died, whereas 2,462 school-age children were killed by firearms," the authors wrote of their findings based on children in the U.S.
Data analysis:
The team at Florida Atlantic University's Schmidt College of Medicine assessed the most recent data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics and found that 38,940 children aged between 5 to 18 years old died in circumstances involving a firearm between 1999 and 2017.

Some 6,464 deaths involved children between 5 to 14 years of age, amounting to 340 deaths annually on average. A further 32,478 children between 15 to 18 years old died, or 2,050 per year on average between 1999 and 2017.

Of these children, 61 percent were killed in an assault involving a firearm, while 32 percent died by suicide. A further 5 percent died in an accident. The death was undetermined in 2 percent of cases.

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:38 pm
by GreenGoo
I don't trust those left wing doctor types.

What does the CDC have to say about it?

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:58 pm
by LawBeefaroni
I don't don't the numbers but how many are gang/crime related? School-age doesn't mean at school or even in school.

It doesn't change the fact that there are far too many kids getting shot (and gang kids are still kids) but it's kind of misleading to imply that all 0-19 year olds getting shot are just school kids going about their school lives. It takes the spotlight off the crime problem and puts it on an inanimate object that is much easier to "solve."

Example.
“It is important to note that firearm injuries and especially deaths are typically not isolated events,” said Alex Piquero, a criminology researcher at the University of Texas at Dallas who wasn’t involved in the study [a different one than the one above but similar, for previous years].

“They often tend to co-occur with other crimes, whether gang-related, drug involved or other serious criminal activities, and for many of these crimes boys tend to be overrepresented compared to girls,”

Re: Gun Politics

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 6:48 pm
by Holman
Former SC Justice John Paul Stevens: The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure.

tl;dr: it was District of Columbia v. Heller, which expanded the 2nd amendment.
Until Heller, the invalidity of Second Amendment–based objections to firearms regulations had been uncontroversial. The first two federal laws directly restricting the civilian use and possession of firearms—the 1927 act prohibiting mail delivery of handguns and the 1934 act prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—were enacted over minor Second Amendment objections that were dismissed by the vast majority of legislators participating in the debates. After reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by Scalia in his majority opinion in Heller, the Miller Court unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did not have “some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” And in 1980, in a footnote to an opinion upholding a conviction for receipt of a firearm, the Court effectively affirmed Miller, writing: “[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”

So well settled was the issue that, speaking on the PBS NewsHour in 1991, the retired Chief Justice Warren Burger described the National Rifle Association’s lobbying in support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in these terms: “One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Even if the lobbyists who oppose gun-control regulation actually do endorse the dubious proposition that the Second Amendment was intended to limit the federal power to regulate the civilian use of handguns—that Burger incorrectly accused them of “fraud”—I find it incredible that policy makers in a democratic society have failed to impose more effective regulations on the ownership and use of firearms than they have.

And even if there were some merit to the legal arguments advanced in the Heller case, all could foresee the negative consequences of the decision, which should have provided my colleagues with the justification needed to apply stare decisis to Miller. At a minimum, it should have given them greater pause before announcing such a radical change in the law that would greatly tie the hands of state and national lawmakers endeavoring to find solutions to the gun problem in America. Their twin failure—first, the misreading of the intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and second, the failure to respect settled precedent—represents the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court’s history.