being used in a crime

no insurance company is going to put themselves in a position to pay out for a Sandy Hook.

after Newtown..not Bernie.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-overhaul-is-defeated-in-senate/2013/04/17/57eb028a-a77c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

If the legislation wouldn't have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering his mother and stealing her legally registered bushmaster, what good would it have done?
How can the manufacturer be liable for a gun that was stolen from its murdered, legal owner and used in a crime?

from our gun culture every day....the legislation would have been a step in the right direction.

I support the lawsuit because the idiots who blocked Obama's legislation have left the
families no relief..if it had passed they would not be going after them this way.

I am familiar with the law firm representing the families and they should not be underestimated, some
good may come from it.

and why is Remington liable for a stolen gun being used in a crime?

Biometric triggers for example.

As Nader proved in the 1970s, suing companies for being irresponsible actors works to stop irresponsible actions.

Neither of which required a biometric trigger at the time of manufacture or sale.

How is Remington liable?

The law firm, Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder

snip* The case has the potential to make history if it goes to trial. A 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, grants gun manufacturers immunity from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of their product -- in this case the AR-15 rifle.

"It's always been a big uphill battle for plaintiffs to sue the gun industry," said Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton. "It was even before the immunity (legislation), and it's an even bigger one now."

One exception to the immunity legislation is what's called "negligent entrustment."

"Say a gun retailer handed a gun to a visibly intoxicated person, then they're not subject to the immunity," said Lytton, who studies gun industry litigation.

You might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.

"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."

in full: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/

is GM liable because they made the car?

And the gun in question was legally purchased and registered with the state.

approaching it. I'm glad they took the case, lets see what they can do since
4 Democrats fucked up the passing of legislation Obama and many Americans wanted.

Bushmaster / Remington.

Seems like they should be pissed at legislators, not manufacturers.

You know, I'll bet there are things that the CT senator doesn't agree with Hillary about. Maybe even some things he agrees with Bernie about. He chose to endorse Hillary. That's fine. But let's at least be honest about it and not condemn a candidate because there's one thing you don't agree with him or her on. Sure, I think Bernie has a few shortcomings, but he's my choice. If any Hillary supporter tells you they agree with Hillary on everything, they are lying or foolish.