Family or Las Vegas mass shooting victim sue gun makers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you mean “empathize”. And I do as well. But she should also sue the auto manufacturer who made the car that took them to the concert, the clothes manufacturer for not making clothes that could have protected them, the performers and promoters, at the concert for luring them there, the hotel for not screening every bag that came through, and the list could go on and on. And it won’t change a damn thing.
 
There’s already a Federal law against doing that. The Sandy Hook parents suit went nowhere, even though a local judge approved the case.

The difference here is that they claim that semi-auto AR-15's fit the legal definition of a machine gun:

26 USC 5845 said:
(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

They make this argument because the Executive branch banned Bump Stocks by reclassifying them as machine guns. If all it takes is a change in stock, the plaintfis argue, then the AR-15 is "...readily restored to shoot, automatically...", and, consequently, the manufacturers engaged in the business of selling illegal products, which is not covered by the PLCAA.
 
The difference here is that they claim that semi-auto AR-15's fit the legal definition of a machine gun:



They make this argument because the Executive branch banned Bump Stocks by reclassifying them as machine guns. If all it takes is a change in stock, the plaintfis argue, then the AR-15 is "...readily restored to shoot, automatically...", and, consequently, the manufacturers engaged in the business of selling illegal products, which is not covered by the PLCAA.

Yep, This is exactly what's worrying about this lawsuit. They are using the fact that Trump reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, along with the long held ATF policy that any gun that can easily be converted to be a machine gun is a machine gun (think open bolt semi-autos) to say that AR-15s fit the definition of easily convertible and should therefore be illegal. This could really apply to any semi-auto which can be fitted with a buffer tube.... Almost all of them.
 
Yep, This is exactly what's worrying about this lawsuit. They are using the fact that Trump reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, along with the long held ATF policy that any gun that can easily be converted to be a machine gun is a machine gun (think open bolt semi-autos) to say that AR-15s fit the definition of easily convertible and should therefore be illegal. This could really apply to any semi-auto which can be fitted with a buffer tube.... Almost all of them.

It's not that its a long held policy... it's the definition in the law. Whether it applies to any one firearm or another is the policy... IE, an AR lower with the "third hole" drilled but no FA fire control parts is functionally only a semi-auto, but it is readily restored to shoot full auto by installing those parts, and thus a machine gun.

The second order effects of the bumpstock ban have been discussed by several members here (including myself), but we were all dismissed and told that wasn't going to happen... now it's going to trial in NV which happens to fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit... and we all know how firearms are treated in that court.
 
If the logic that a gun that can be converted to fully auto voids the Federal law which covers the normally intended usage, then there is a great problem. Parts to convert Glocks to fully auto have been coming out of China and are in the attention of Federal law enforcement. So I said elsewhere:

I am not a lawyer. So this is worth squat. If the Fed law says:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901

If the President by his action caused the bump stocked gun to classified be a 'machine gun' and the gun's designed easily allow that to happen, the protection of the clause product functioned as designed and intended could be seen as void by a judge or jury. It was not the normal use of the gun and the design allowed it easily to be used in that fashion.

I can easily see a judge with a specific viewpoint and a jury sympathetic to the victims going for it. The implications though are risky. HCM posted about the import of Glock parts to make them fully auto. If someone went off with one of those modified guns - would a similar lawsuit be possible?

The Donald's actions enhanced the lawsuit's viability. Also, the secret plan of the NRA to throw the bump stocks under the bus to stop as they claim the unstoppable, extreme AWB from passing, might set a precedent to take down guns that simple parts can be made to be fully auto. Oops - if that occurs.
 
I think you mean “empathize”. And I do as well. But she should also sue the auto manufacturer who made the car that took them to the concert, the clothes manufacturer for not making clothes that could have protected them, the performers and promoters, at the concert for luring them there, the hotel for not screening every bag that came through, and the list could go on and on. And it won’t change a damn thing.


And the comparison between guns and other products you describe is exactly the reason this suit will go nowhere. It would open up a floodgate of lawsuits against everything made
 
Who defines “easily converted”? My 76 year old Garand and M1A can be easily converted if I had a simple drill press and mill. My AR can be with a coat hanger. Or even easier for all 3 if I do nothing but wear pants with a belt loop.
 
Who defines “easily converted”? My 76 year old Garand and M1A can be easily converted if I had a simple drill press and mill. My AR can be with a coat hanger. Or even easier for all 3 if I do nothing but wear pants with a belt loop.

John Moses Browning converted a lever action Winchester 1873 rifle to full auto.

Easy??:scrutiny:

Well, for John Moses Browning, it was.:neener:
 
As pdsmith505 stated in Post #5 with that USC quote "by a single function of the trigger", then I suggest that Trump can call them what he wants but the "legal" definition and description supersedes that. Even with the bump-stocks, the trigger was activated multiple times and the speed of that activation is immaterial.
 
So does this mean my wife can sue Ford for the T-bone accident she was in during the 90's? No? That is stupid. So is suing gun makers.

Preaching to the choir I know.
 
You guys are missing the point. It's a GUN. AR15 is a number and poster child of anti gunners. If it was a Garand, M1 carbine, Ruger M14/30 or SKS it would get the same bad press. But what surprises me is the low amount of AK variations that are out there that haven't been used. My only thought is the AR/M4 platform is popular and big on gameing sites that show you how to actually handle one. The character has to handle, load mags, cock and reload to fire. Makes it pretty easy when yo have a real one in your hands. Think about it.
 
A semi-auto AR15 requires a separate, external device (i.e., bump stock) in order to be "restored to fire automatically." And technically, you can't "restore" a function that didn't previously exist. The AR15, as manufactured and sold, does not have automatic fire capability. This lawsuit is a fishing expedition and should be over before it starts.
 
I read that yesterday. That's like saying that we should sue Home Depot and Chevy because somebody rented a truck and was able to drive it in such a way that injured/killed people. The argument just doesn't hold up if applied to other things.
 
Who defines “easily converted”?

Well, the 1st judge who has a crack at the case has...the 1st option of saying...whatever. So in effect, it could be as early as the 1st judge presiding. Then the subsequent appeals-whoever has the deeper pockets
 
A semi-auto AR15 requires a separate, external device (i.e., bump stock) in order to be "restored to fire automatically." And technically, you can't "restore" a function that didn't previously exist. The AR15, as manufactured and sold, does not have automatic fire capability. This lawsuit is a fishing expedition and should be over before it starts.

Or a lightning link, which is entirely internal.

Regardless, open-bolt MAC semi-autos, as sold, did not have auto fire capablity... guess what, they are machine guns because they can be readily restored to shoot in auto. That restoration takes more effort and skill than a LL or bump stock to do it.
 
I fear that the decision on whether the lawsuits are viable will depend on the politics of the judges. I've read recently that the judiciary is becoming as polarized as anything. Faced with negative lower court outcomes, precedents build and only can only hope that Trump's two golden boys would move SCOTUS to 'save the day'. However, will they take the case, will Roberts support a clear and unambiguous RKBA decision. I doubt it. The NYC travel case will be a diagnostic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top