What can be learned from Sandy Hook? [View all]

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

First and primarily, having guns and deadly weapons in a home with a mentally/emotionally unstable teenager is not a good idea. He could have a break and kill you... and others.

From the subsequent uproar and legal proceedings it can be seen that bringing a lawsuit for civil damages against the sellers, marketers and manufacturers of the weapons is not going gain anything for anyone who isn't an attorney working for either side.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=80e88e3e-2bb1-4b52-b48f-db92755328bd
The defendants moved to strike plaintiffs’ complaint based on the PLCAA. The PLCAA generally prohibits a civil action against a manufacturer or seller of firearms where the firearm functioned as intended and the injury or other harm suffered was the result of criminal or unlawful misuse of the firearm. This prohibition is subject to certain exceptions, two of which were claimed by Plaintiffs: the negligent entrustment exception, for an "action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;" and the predicate exception, for "an action where a manufacturer or seller of a [firearm] knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought." While the PLCAA explicitly preserves certain claims within its enumerated exceptions, it does not create them: "no provision of [PLCAA] shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy." (Emphasis mine)

The PLCAA has become part of the US Code in titles 15 and 18. The plaintiffs in the Connecticut lawsuit have successfully argued to have their case heard in Connecticut courts rather than federal courts based on their assessment that the state courts would be more receptive to their arguments and appeals. In general, federal laws, rulings and precedents have bearing and often supersede their state level equivalents, as has been highlighted by a learned associate here: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211810) Further reading at the link to the above excerpt will detail the degree of failure in that thinking.

Returning to the topic in the subject, I infer that any and all negligence and criminal or civil liability is limited to Adam and Nancy Lanza and their estate. Further, attempts by well meaning and earnest plaintiffs and their avaricious counsel to end run the law will vanish like a gnat fart. I conjecture that if there weren't such an abundance of federal, state and local laws regarding the legal sale and transfer of firearms or if the companies involved could be shown to have broken those laws, the burden of assuring that responsible entrustment via the chain of commerce could be spread beyond the Lanzas.

I further suggest that if you don't like the rules, working to change them before they affect you will yield better results than simply breaking them and arguing later that they shouldn't apply because of your special status.

In this case, the defendants made, marketed and sold a product in compliance with numerous state and federal laws. A product protected specifically for individual ownership in the Bill of Rights. Everyone should be able to see where this was going from the start.

History is littered with the words of smart folks who've explained that individuals have a right to arms. Here's a few:
>> "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
>> "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
>> "The structure of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective one."
>> "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic..."
>> "Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even ’til the aggressor’s death..."
>> "Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
>> "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe."
>> "But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one."