That is now irrelevant.This is nothing but posturing by anti-2A people that have no understanding....
That will be for a court to decide.stchman said:Bushmaster is not liable for what someone does with their products, Bushmaster is liable if one of their products is defective.
Maybe. It may also be 3-5 years before it ever sees a jury, if at all.MEHavey said:That is now irrelevant.stchman said:This is nothing but posturing by anti-2A people that have no understanding....
It will go before a deep-pockets-ain't-it-awful-someone-
must-pay jury -- jammed by an emotional appeal.
...and the precedent will be set.
You're very welcome.Hypnogator said:Thanks, Spats, for taking the time to share your procedural knowledge!
Because the PLCAA is an affirmative defense and must therefore be pleaded and proved by the defendant.HOOfan_1 said:...why should Bushmaster have to prove why PCLAA doesn't apply to this case....
Thanks, Spats. Allow me to expand on this and outline, in very broad terms and glossing over many details, how civil litigation works.Spats McGee said:There's no "practical evidence" put on at the motion to dismiss (MTD) stage. It's pure legal argument, like: (1) The PLCAA applies to us; (2) the PLCAA doesn't allow this lawsuit; therefore (3) this lawsuit should be dismissed.....
last I heard was that no ar was used there that there may have been one in the car? The photos I remembered showed a shotgun. There were also rumors that it never happened?
even if so what part of the federal law exempting manufacturers from this nonsense does not apply?
Frank Ettin said:First, this is a fine example of how a civil immunity law can not guarantee that you will not have to defend a civil lawsuit. The PCLAA provides certain classes of persons/businesses with civil immunity for certain activities and subject to certain exceptions. But whether the activities are within the protection of the law, or the exceptions take the activities outside those protections, can be disputed; and in the event of such dispute, litigation will be needed to resolve the dispute.
HOOfan_1 said:...why should Bushmaster have to prove why PCLAA doesn't apply to this case....
Because the PCLAA is an affirmative defense and must therefore be pleaded and proved by the defendant.
last I heard was that no ar was used there that there may have been one in the car? The photos I remembered showed a shotgun. There were also rumors that it never happened?
even if so what part of the federal law exempting manufacturers from this nonsense does not apply?
And it is very difficult for a defendant to get a definitive win at the MTD stage. Except in unusually situations (e. g., trying out a novel theory of liability), a decent plaintiff's lawyer can usually draft a complaint that will survive a MTD.Spats McGee said:...All we really know at this point is that Bushmaster was not able to overcome all of the factual allegations of the complaint (taken as true), to the satisfaction of this judge, sufficient to grant an MTD....
Thanks. I never was much good at spelling.Derry 1946 said:...I think Frank means "trier of fact," not "tier."...
It is a highly technical decision based on certain particular wrinkles in Connecticut civil procedure.gc70 said:Here is the court's decision, which does not read exactly as it is being portrayed in some news reports.
Well the court doesn't agree with you, and the opinion of the court trumps yours.larry_minn said:IMO the judge should have to pay any court costs after this point. The law is clear...