Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel said Wednesday that victims and families in the Poway, California, synagogue shooting have adequately alleged that Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest gunmaker, knew its AR-15-style rifle could be easily modified into a machine-gun-like or an assault weapon in violation of state law.
Wednesday, July 14, 2021
Victims of 2019 shooting at Poway synagogue can sue gunmaker
A California judge decided victims of the 2019 synagogue shooting near San Diego that killed one worshiper and wounded three can sue the manufacturer of the semiautomatic rifle and the gun shop that sold it to the teenage gunman, according to a newspaper report.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder if this gets struck down or if it sets precedent? If it sets precedent could car makers be sued for deaths when a driver strikes another person??? Could food product providers be sued when someone chokes to death on a bite of steak or some other food product?? What about knife makers?? Ax makers?? Pipe makers?? Hopefully this is vacated by some higher court but with the fear oligarchs have over guns I am not hopeful.
ReplyDeleteWhy are the blaming the gun? When a drunk kills someone with a car, they don't blame the car - they blame the drunk. So why not blame the criminal that pulled the trigger? More people are killed by cars than guns. Just a back door to gun control. They aim to put the gun manufactures out of business.
ReplyDeleteFirst rule of lawsuits: Never sue poor people. Go after the megacorporations, they have deep pockets.
DeleteI own an older Bushmaster AR, the type the DC sniper used, and was told by a gunsmith, with a little bit of knowledge and a file, you can file down the sear and make it fully auto in about 15 minutes, of course if you do that and get caugut you could also go to jail...I do believe him, he was the master armorer at Colt before he jumped ship and went over to US Firearms...so suing Smith&Wesson is a joke, you can convert ANY AR...
ReplyDeleteI’m gonna sue Dodge because they knew their vehicles could be modified.... This is getting beyond stupid. These types of cases need to be tossed out as frivolous and the dumbass lawyers who file them need to be held in contempt.
ReplyDeleteIt's not only Californica, it's the 9th Circus. They do shit like this all the time.
DeleteWhich is why I will never set foot in California again.
Let's sue Harvard or wherever because they knew they could make defective lawyers and judges that would violate the constitution for pure political purposes!
ReplyDeleteJudges fuck up and get reversed all the time. The PLCAA protects manufacturers fully, unless they have knowingly broken the law in marketing or selling the product. Very high and very narrow barrier. Several recent attempts to go through that hole are pending in the courts. This is another try. Sounds like a thin basis- even if true, knowing that the weapon could be easily modified does not meet the test above.
ReplyDeleteLaws are like ice cream - easily melted. I represented a defense contractor that got sued for making a piece of equipment which the plaintiff claimed injured him. The equipment was manufactured to the contract specifications, which is supposed to be an absolute bar to liability. The judge agreed that the equipment was manufactured to spec, but allowed the suit go forward anyway. Manufacturer had to settle, because it could not risk an appellate court upholding the trial court's decision that they could be sued.
DeleteMedel....a good Irish name
ReplyDelete“its AR-15-style rifle could be easily modified into a machine-gun-like or an assault weapon”
ReplyDeleteMachine gun “like”? “Assault weapon”?
Two made up terms that don’t translate to english.
This horseshit suit should take about a 5 minutes to squash.
When a cop shoots someone, it’s always the cops fault. When anyone else shoots someone it’s the guns fault.
As noted above, the PLCAA will take this and flush it to where belongs.
Rulings like this one are promulgated for one reason only...to serve the commie lefts agenda.
ReplyDeleteThe Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms act was passed SPECIFICALLY to prevent such frivolous lawsuits. But since the left....and almost ALL the judiciary hate the Second Amendment and want us all disarmed judges IGNORE this clearly written and specific law in order to attack our rights. The only lesson possible from such the acts of black robed pirates like this one is that we need to start hanging judges....in large numbers.
This should be overturned on appeal. Just because they can be sued doesn't mean they'll lose.
ReplyDelete