This court ruling just became the biggest threat to gun rights since Obama was in office

President Trump may be in the White House, but that doesn’t mean gun-grabbers have given up chipping away at the Second Amendment.

And they may have just received an upper hand.

This court ruling could effectively destroy the Second Amendment overnight.

Liberals have realized they can’t outright ban guns.

Which is why they have turned to creative gun-confiscation schemes such as the so-called “assault weapons” ban or “mental health background checks.”

Traditionally, the courts have not sided with gun-control activists and have upheld the Second Amendment.

But all of that just changed.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that the victims of a mass shooting may sue the firearms manufacturer for liability.

Breitbart reports:

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the suit against the manufacturer of the stolen AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook shooting can proceed.

The attacker in the December 14, 2012, shooting took the Bushmaster rifle from his mother, killed her, then took the AR-15 and other stolen guns to school and killed 26 others.

The suit is against Remington, which is the parent company of Bushmaster, and it was filed in October 2014. It was dismissed two years later, in October 2016, by Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis.

Bellis dismissed the case in light of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects gun manufacturers from being sued in instances where the gun in question was legally made and sold. The Bushmaster was legally made and sold to Nancy Lanza, prior to it being stolen and used in a crime.

If gun manufacturers are held responsible for the acts of criminals, they may be forced to close their doors.

That could make access to firearms for law-abiding citizens nearly impossible in the future.

Leftists are trying to do everything in their power to get rid of all firearms.

But you won’t see them blaming car manufacturers for a radical Islamic terrorist plowing through a crowd of people.

If the gun-grabbers get their way and this ruling holds up, the Second Amendment could be in grave danger.

What do you think? Vote in our poll and let us know in the comments section.

Loading...

You may also like...

107 Responses

  1. NOBODY says:

    ok, let’s think about this for a NY min.
    if this is the case, then human error air crashes should sue the manufactures of planes, and the morons that drive their cars/trucks in to crowds those manufactures should oh, hell lets sue the government for granting all those lic. to manufacture the cars, trucks, guns and explosive markers, plane and the government! oh, wait the pressure cookers co. as well, why stop there, same goes for items that only may cause cancer.
    ()MAY)
    these idiots want us sterilized bare foot, dumb down, SO THE DEEP STATE can control us…. soilet and green anyone? rino’s get out! your not wanted here

    • ward says:

      REMEMBER world history that dictators have to remove any threat to their tyranny rule & guns or any weapon has to be removed from the hands of all people that want freedom & Rights ! Remove the dictator supporting stench of bo type dem asses from government to support U.S. Citizen Constitution !

  2. Mike says:

    So if arms manufacturers are responsible for deaths by firearms, are auto manufacturers going to be held responsible for deaths from auto accidents??

  3. Phil says:

    This is totally insane! So next they’ll be suing a rope manufacturer because someone strangled someone else with a rope? Or a car or truck was used to kill someone after it was stolen? To kill some innocent person walking in a crosswalk? So sue the manufacturer too! What idiot would create this type of law? Manufacturing would grind to a halt and no one would want to invent anything because they’re be in fear of being sued for misuse by a nut case who stole their product to kill someone on purpose or by accident? This type of garbage is what is destroying America! Talk about frivolous law suits?

  4. Gene says:

    In this instance, Federal Law holds supreme over the state’s ruling. This is a Constitutional issue that is covered by 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903; Protection of Lawful Commerce Act. Their unlawful ruling will be overturned by the SCOTUS.

    • Phil says:

      I surely hope so! This kind of ruling would spread to the States like wild fire for these gun grabbing fool’s! I know you are right! But. This battle will end up in court by individuals fighting for their Constitutional right’s just to make it s pain in our asses! To cause us grief to get our toy’s back? It ‘s a money making racket. The Democratic States think they have sovereignty to do or be in control of their State? Which you described is correct! If there is any discrepancies between any City , County , State or federal law? Federal law supersedes all other laws period!

  5. William Van Winkle says:

    And the bartender can be used for selling the drinks to the drunk driver who has an accident and kills someone. Or the distillery that made the whiskey the bartender sold to the drunk driver could be used and probably would be since they have the deepest pockets.

  6. Rich Magnani says:

    That’s like saying Chevy is responsible when a drunk driver kills someone. It’s the same way of thinking.

    • newhon63 says:

      Why do we keep having to have the same conversations over and over again?

      Leftist members of Congress spend most of their time working on ways to circumvent all the rights of the Constitution. The rest of their time is spent trying to figure out how to profit from legislation passed.

    • John says:

      Rich Magnani: To me, a more equivalent view is that all car and truck manufacturers, including Chevy must be responsible for all injuries and deaths of people, whether from drunk driving, reckless driving, improper parking and the vehicle rolls over someone or out into traffic, skidding on bad roads, a driver swerves or stops too fast, causing an accident, and any other absurdity that can be thought of.

  7. John J says:

    This is anti American thinking at it’s peak, we must not let it stand

  8. Joe Feeney says:

    Sounds like the Connecticut Supreme Court hasn’t read the Second Amendment!

  9. Randall says:

    Don’t care what you friggin demonrats say……WE WILL KEEP OUR GUNS, AND IF YOU COME TO TAKE THEM, THEN BRING BODY BAGS…..FOR YOURSELVES!!!!

  10. Shane Lowrey says:

    So, gun manufacturer should be shielded from prosecution, but, vaccine manufacturer should not. I don’t understand.

    • Sid says:

      What you don’t understand is liberty. As long as the gun functions as expected, the manufacturer has no further liability. The drug manufacturer is also responsible for the performance of the drug. if it causes harm due to faulty “design” then he would be liable. In a “free country” nobody can be held accountable for the actions of someone else.

    • UBenHad says:

      It IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS AMERICANS TO OBTAIN AND OWN A GUN!!!IF you read the 2nd ammendment,NOWHERE in that wording does it say that certain AMERICANS would be denied their 2nd AMENDMENT rights by being forced to undergo a background check TO BE ENTITLED TO OBTAIN AND OWN A FIREARM AS THE 2ND AMMENDMENT CLEARLY STATES THAT THIS RIGHT “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!”…SO,WITH THIS SAID,IF WE WANT TO GET TO SPLITTING HAIRS HERE …THIS BACKGROUND CHECK USURPS THE 2ND AMMENDMENT WHEN THE 2ND AMMENDMENT CLEARLY STATES THAT THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!…IT CANNOT LEGALLY BE ANY MORE CLEARLY WRITTEN AS TO ITS MEANING AS ONCE THE SUPREME COURT ALLOWS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST ALTERATION OF THE 2ND AMMENDMENT THEN THIS MEANS THAT THOSE WHO ARE BEHIND THE CHANGE TO THE 2ND AMMENDMENT CLEARLY HAS ULTERIOR MOTIVES FOR THE BASIS OF THIS AMMENDMENT TO BE ALTERED…AND ITS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE ….ITS FOR THE FEW WHO DESIRE THE POWER AND CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE!! SAME REASON WHY THESE SAME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO WORK AROUND THE 1ST AMMENDMENT

  11. Keith D says:

    The Supreme Court SHOULD overturn this INSANITY!! That a or I need a LONG list of manufactures and airlines car companies cutlery companies etc… for every car e]very car wreck plane crash obese cause food industry and do NOT forget the GOVERNMENT that has 90% ALL PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!

  12. Larry Gaines says:

    The Connecticut Supreme Court is filled with stupid Idiots and their ruling about gun manufactures can be overturned

  13. Linda H says:

    OUCH!!! I just cut myself with a knife. I’ll sue the company that made the knife. Why not? They are sueing the gun company. DUH.

  14. michael zitterman says:

    THE BILL OF RIGHTS
    Second Amendment
    Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The meaning of this amendment has been argued ad infinitum.

    Allow us to assume this Amendment reads:
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    That would appear to be crystal clear, but why would an amendment be necessary to state the obvious, since anyone who wanted arms had arms?

    The actual amendment appears to become clarified when we add: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.

    That appears to define, with specificity, the meaning, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is due to the necessity of being able to call citizens, when and if necessary, to form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of augmenting the standing army for the ultimate purpose of the defense of the nation.

    When citizens would be called to serve in a well-regulated militia, it was necessary that they bring arms, thus no authority should be able to deny the possession of the requisite arms.

    DISCUSSION:
    James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were involved in discussions as to whether to have a large standing army or a small one which could be supplemented by a call-up of citizens.

    Since we were a growing nation and needed farmers, builders, etc., they opted for a smaller cadre military.

    It appears that the conclusion was that the organized militia (the army) could augment its forces if and when required.

    It is, further, probable that the State National Guard system and the military’s reserve system is the metamorphosis of the intended, but out-dated, “well-regulated militia”.

    Thus, it appears that there is no possible phenomenon as a “well-regulated militia” or any possibility thereof, in the United States of America.

    CONCLUSION:
    It appears the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not imply an inherent right for an individual to keep and bear arms for any purpose other than to be able to participate in a “well-regulated militia”.

    Furthermore, since the “well-regulated militia” has been subrogated by the ORGANIZED militia, this amendment is without significance, i.e., has no meaning or consequence.

    ADDITIONALLY:
    This analysis does not intend to imply that a citizen does not possess an inherent right to self-defense.

    This analysis is being presented for the sole purpose to reflect that the intent and basis for the 2nd Amendment have been eliminated, thus the functionality of this amendment has been eliminated and cannot and must not be relied upon to build any legal edifice upon that defective foundation.

    Again, when our nation was in its youth, the 2nd Amendment was necessary and
    functional to enable the security of our nation.

    michael zitterman
    December 13, 1999
    Revised April 14, 2014
    Revised February 17, 2019

    See: http://www.markreedforcongress.com/category/policy-opinion-editorial/

    • Sr. Nancy Ruth Tomaso says:

      Mr. Zitterman, your argument is well written and thought out but the conclusion, that the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed because we have a standing army is wrong. The 2nd Amendment is MORE important now than it was when the Constitution was written because the right to bear arms is there so that we can defend ourselves and our rights against an over-reaching government. This over-reaching government exists now and one of their courts just sent down this ridiculous ruling.

      • michael zitterman says:

        Nancy, where I appreciate your comments, please respond to:

        Allow us to assume this Amendment reads:
        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        That would appear to be crystal clear, but why would an amendment be necessary to state the obvious, since anyone who wanted arms had arms?

        The actual amendment appears to become clarified when we add: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.

        That appears to define, with specificity, the meaning, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is due to the necessity of being able to call citizens, when and if necessary, to form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of augmenting the standing army for the ultimate purpose of the defense of the nation.

        When citizens would be called to serve in a well-regulated militia, it was necessary that they bring arms, thus no authority should be able to deny the possession of the requisite arms.

        Thank you.

        michael zitterman
        mikiesmoky@aol.com

    • TERRY Scott says:

      Ok. How do you personally plan to protect your home and especially your children from home invasions using their guns to subdue you and do what they want with your children. They could sell them, rape them and kill them! You seem like you don’t care about defense. Or do you take a knife to a gun fight. They don’t need a gun if there’s enough of them to put you down. Oh and what about disabled persons who have no way to protect themselves but a gun
      If you take innocent’s guns what do you think gangs such as MS 13 WILL DO. What ever they freaking want to.

      • michael zitterman says:

        Terry, if you are addressing me, I don’t understand why you offer nothing that is responsive to the analysis.
        I have not suggested you cannot defend yourself and your family.

        ?????????

        PLEASE NOTE: This analysis does not intend to imply that a citizen does not possess an inherent right to self-defense.

        This analysis is being presented for the sole purpose to reflect that the intent and basis for the 2nd Amendment have been eliminated, thus the functionality of this amendment has been eliminated and cannot and must not be relied upon to build any legal edifice upon that defective foundation.

        michael zitterman
        mikiesmoky@aol.com

    • James C Green says:

      Wrong! And the Supreme Court just clarified that recently. We have the God-given, fundamental, natural, unalienable, constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The Founders were inspired to put that amendment right after free-speech. And they knew that the only way we could defend ourselves against a government that might turn tyrannical was to be armed. In the last century 200 million people were first disarmed and then executed by their own governments. No way will we ever give up that right… no matter what the government or laws might say.

      • Phyllis says:

        You are absolutely correct. Thomas Jefferson, said when the Constitution was being written ” The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in Government.” ” He also said the beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed, until they try to take it away.” He was a wise man, who could see a time when this would be necessary.

    • Sid England says:

      Completely wrong. Why would our founders, who had just fought a revolution to secure their rights, then turn over those rights to the government? The constitution is a document which defines and limits the GOVERNMENT, not the people in any way. The “bill of rights” is written in the negative, meaning it is a list of things the government must NEVER DO. The constitution does not grant or remove ANY rights, they come from nature, including the right of self defense, which MUST include any and all means for that purpose against any foe including the government, which the founders agreed must be constrained. The created (government) must never become more powerful than the creators (people) which can only mean we have the permanent right to remain more powerful than the government. We can’t do that if we give them the power to disarm us. Rights can not be morally removed, only honored or violated and if we allow this right to be violated, tyranny will be the result. Well “regulated” in the context of the day meant well trained, not well controlled and a militia by definition i a “peoples army” which cannot even exist unless the people, meaning all individuals are free to possess arms. The first clause is the why, the second clause is the how. The second amendment does not “imply”a right to bear arms, it states it EMPHATICALLY.

      • michael zitterman says:

        Thanks for your comments.
        Please reread and respond to:

        The meaning of this amendment has been argued ad infinitum.

        Allow us to assume this Amendment reads:
        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        That would appear to be crystal clear, but why would an amendment be necessary to state the obvious, since anyone who wanted arms had arms?

        The actual amendment appears to become clarified when we add: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.

        That appears to define, with specificity, the meaning, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is due to the necessity of being able to call citizens, when and if necessary, to form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of augmenting the standing army for the ultimate purpose of the defense of the nation.

        When citizens would be called to serve in a well-regulated militia, it was necessary that they bring arms, thus no authority should be able to deny the possession of the requisite arms.

        thank you.

        • Sid says:

          Repeating it doesn’t make it so. I don’t need to re-read anything. The right of self defense goes far beyond just a militia. it’s an individual, natural right with NO LIMITS, just as our founders understood.

        • SweetOlBob says:

          An amendment to state the obvious is sometimes necessary because soonr or later, someone withthe intention of subverting the entire amendment for their own purposes and say
          “Well, what they really meant to say was”……………
          They said what they really meant to say !

    • Barry says:

      BULLSHIP and here’s why: The People’s right to bear arms is because without them we could quite possibly still be part of the British Empire. The 2nd Amendment allows Americans to defend themselves against TIERNEY wherever it may raise its Ugly head.
      I am 72…I’ve never seen our gov’t so dysfunctional & useless. In a word, it’s Disgusting Three years of investigating Collusion with little to NO help from the other side of “our” Gov’t. The Guilty are set free while the innocent are Destroyed Financially & Professionally. No one went to jail or was charged with Collusion.
      The ones that did go to jail were charged with process crimes.
      Manafort: wasn’t he already tried & found Innocent for most of those crimes? Then Mueller had him put in Solitary for 6 months.
      I’d say that was pretty
      Cruel & Unusual Punishment for a Process Crime.

      General Flynn: Survived 30 years of Military Service…in & out of War. Flynn is honored for his service when asked to join President Trump in the White House. By Comeys OWN admission he sent a couple of FBI Agents to Investigate Flynn w/o
      informing him that he is being investigated. Flynn Misremembers (sort of like how
      Blumenthal misremembered ALL
      that time & action he NEVER spent in the Military).

      Cohen: This one I just Can’t get past. Mueller had his “Hit Squad”
      break into the Presidents Attorneys Office looking for evidence of Collusion and they took EVERYTHING. Like
      Attormey-Client privilege DOESN’T exist.

      The Wall could be THE MOST
      IMPORTANT EXPENDITURE
      The United States makes in order to keep its people SAFE.
      On my OPINION we sincerely do have a Federal Emergency at our border.

      Soon we will have 30k people…maybe more…on the other side of the border that want to come into the US Any Way They Can Except LEGALLY.

      If that ain’t a Federal Emergency
      What the FRAK is?

      Sincerely,
      Barry

      Venezuela
      Find

  15. Ronald C Watt says:

    Justice Antonio was a strong supporter of the second amendment and stood in their way.

    • TERRY says:

      Hey! Here’s a good one. How many legal immigrants have moved here from the atrocities going on in your home countries? You wish to be treated as a true AMERICAN. Where are you going if OUR GREAT NATION turns into what you left. Where are all of us going to escape to then? Make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!! Also AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY. READ THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE

    • AJ MARSHALL says:

      NEXT THEY WILL TAKE YOUR CAR BECAUSE YOU RAN SOMEONE OVER AND KILLED THEM, UNLESS YOUR AN ILLEGAL, THEN YOU GO FREE,

    • Chris Robinette says:

      Connecticut Supreme Court is a local state court and not the national supreme court. This ruling will be challenged in higher courts. This Connecticut Supreme Court will be slapped down as federal law supersedes

      • Dan Alpert says:

        Agreed. Even a state supreme court is not over the US Constitution.
        They can rule on the constitutionality of a state law passed by the state legislature, but they are not the authority over the US Constitution.
        If a challenge came before the US Supreme Court, this law would fall flat.

  16. Ronald C Watt says:

    Now you know why Soros, Obama, and Hillary had Supreme Court Justice murder at Obama’s friend;s ranch.
    Hillary thought they had the election sewed up and her first order was going to be to disarm every American to make it easier for the world order to take over.They all should be hanged in public and on National tv.

    • TERRY Scott says:

      Did you know that the 1 world order plans were drawn up in 1925. The president at that time was in on it and personally delivered the script to the UN himself.

  17. Ronald C Watt says:

    By the same idiotic reasoning then when an illegal breaks the law, every member of congress that refuse to enforce immigration laws can be sued. Fair is fair.

    • TERRY Scott says:

      In that case , we should be a to sue obama for screwing up AMERICA. Sending jobs overseas. All he ever did was vacationing. How about democrats that want open borders. How many deaths and rapes from illegal aliens that has been deported and then walk back into our country to do the same thing all over again.

  18. Carbine Williams says:

    The SCOTUS will slap this down so fast ,but the damn plaintiffs should be required to pay all court costs when they lose

  19. Gregory says:

    How about baseball bats?

  20. Dan the Man says:

    Using the same doctrine then, relatives who have lost loved ones as a result of activities by Illegals can now sue Congress for failing to protect their constituents by not passing laws and legislation for monies to be spent on the Borders…. The job of Congress, who took oaths to protect and honor the laws and to promote the Bill of Rights and it’s amendments, is to pass legislation to guarantee the rights and prosperity of her citizens…….. Some Attorney/Lawyer is going to have a field day with this one I hope! It’s time to take back our country for our future and prosperity seem to now depend on that!

  21. Mark Fraktman says:

    What’s next, going after car manufacturers and/or beer and liquor manufacturers for alcohol-related accidents? Or using vehicles in terror attacks>

  22. Gregory Sullivan says:

    In Japan a crazed individual beat his family to death with a garden shovel. Should we hold the manufacturer of the shovel responsible for that idiot’s actions if that ever happens here?

  23. Penn Crockett says:

    Deceased receives in U.S. Mail an envelope containing Poison Powder. Opens and dies within moments. Spouse, a democrat female, sues U.S. Postal Service for $55 Trillion, represented by AOC’s cousin, a practicing Atty. in Conn. Obama appointed judge rules in favor of the Plaintiff and awards $45 Trillion. Later the same day, the Plaintiff, driving drunk, becoming intoxicated from the whiskey purchased with the money awarded by the Obama appointed judge, veers off the road and kills 15 pedestrians. Survivors sue the Obama appointed judge and are awarded $185 Trillion. Supreme Court rules, with a tie-breaking vote cast by Ginsberg, in favor of only $135 Trillion. Post Office shuts down. OAC steps in and forms a New Green Postal Authority, dedicated to ONLY postal persons WALKING their delivery routes, no more Postal vehicles because the fumes from the gasoline-driven vehicles are causing the earth to be destroyed in 8 years instead of 12 years. Meantime, a drunk driver, OAC’s cousin, strikes and kills 12 pedestrians. Drunk driver is operating a new Mercedes, purchased with money received from AOC, as a gift for his support of her efforts in promoting her NEW GREEN DEAL. Judge this time is from Alabama and throws the suit out. Cousin appeals. 7th District Court of Appeals reverses the lower court and awards Mercedes mfg. $456 Trillion. Mercedes sues Department of Motor Vehicles in Alabama for issuing a business license to the dealership who sold the Mercedes. Meantime, the owner of Mercedes dies. His spouse sues AOC for proposing NEW GREEN DEAL and judge awards $876 Trillion to Plaintiff. AOC drops out of Congress and moves to China. Upon arrival, AOC slips and falls on the runway as she is exiting plane. Chinese Premier orders AOC to prison where she remains locked up pending trial, with the trial scheduled something within 25 years. The U.S. declares a new National Holiday in recognition of AOC’s permanent departure. AOC’s boyfriend is named the replacement for AOC’s departure from Congress, and two days later AOC’s boyfriend is struck by a drunk driver, operating a Chinese mfg. auto. No legal action is taken. President Trump is re-elected. Meantime, Pelosi has a stroke and dies. Chuckie suddenly passes away by some mysterious unknown cause. Congress goes into closed session and drafts a new Immigration Policy. N. Korea disarms and inspectors declare a total nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. Putin resigns. Election results produce a sweeping vote for Conservative Republicans in both houses by a margin of 75%. All is well.

  24. Arlene Smith says:

    Some guy said the government can’t take away our 2nd amendment right , yes they can . If we fail to stay vigilant they will slowely take all our rights away .They have already started .

  25. Alfred kneer says:

    FredK The gun is the tool, the mind is the weapon

  26. John says:

    There are an awful lot of judges who should be removed from the bench.

  27. John says:

    Connecticut LIBERAL judge explains it all. It’s a farce and the world knows it,, NO wonder crazy Bernie is running?

  28. Joe says:

    STUPID! Using that Court’s logic, General Motors, Ford, AMC, and every manufacturer of motorized vehicles could be held responsible for the accidents due to drunk drivers! Stupid and it will certainly be overturned on appeal!

  29. Rick says:

    may sue the firearms manufacturer for liability.
    Any auto accidents we will sue the auto manufacturers.
    THIS IS GOING TO OPEN A CAN OF WORMS…
    AND ATTORNEYS ARE GOING TO LOVE IT…

  30. Carol says:

    Its the people not the guns. You’ll have no problems with real gun owners that are responsible.

    • JIM says:

      The Second Amendment was put in the Constitution to protect us from these so called judges. It gives us the right to stop them with whatever force is needed.

    • Yes actually dems do have a problem with citizens who own firearms. They want complete power over everything we eat, drink, wear, and say. They can’t do that with an armed citizenry. We have the 2nd amendment that gives us the right to rise up and take out these dem tyrants who are dictators. All of them. That is why they are trying to take away the 2nd amendment. It’s about power and money. We have it, they want it.

  31. William says:

    If that would be true; every time there is a death in an automobile we can sue GM along with all the companies who supplied parts for the vehicle!!!

  32. penncrockett says:

    Ok.. so..NEXT.. a drunk driver is driving a Chevrolet vehicle. He veers off onto a sidewalk and and kills 7 pedestrians. The Chevrolet Motor Company is sued. A couple of days later, another drunk driver kills 5 more. This driver was driving a Ford. Ford Motor Company is sued for this. Next, one of the well known Korean vehicles hits.. yes.. another 5 pedestrians and that Company is facing yet another litigation. All of the complainants are democrats.

    • Glenn says:

      Don’t forget the vehicle is only half responsible, the brand of alcohol is responsible for the other half. Really, wake up. The idiot that committed the crimes is 100% responsible. How dumb can we be, firearms are legal, alcohol is legal, the jackass that committed the incident is illegal…….HE BROKE THE LAW…

  33. Don Lindsey says:

    What is need is criminal try the person who committed the crime, they are the ones who pull the trigger not the company who built it.

    And bet that if it was public we would be finding that those who commit the crimes 95% who show up as belonging to the democratic party.

  34. Martin says:

    If they win this then we should be able to sue all the public officials that have aloud sanctuary cities and Congress because they have not stopped them. Just look at all the innocent people that have been killed by illegals that have been protected.

    • Denis says:

      Well now! Surely, then. we can SUE companies that make “baby butchering utensils; devices; pills and potions for the premeditated murder of innocent; defenseless; and voiceless babies who are unable to fight back and escape.

  35. Carl Bujan says:

    This ruling is Unconstitutional, it’s like saying if you get into a accident and the other driver at fault was driving a ford does that give you the right to sue ford? No it doesn’t.

    • ROY S. MALLMANN II says:

      This will not stand because he did not
      legally” buy the weapon. His mother bought it and kept it locked up in a gun safe that the shooter had no access to. He killed his mother to get the key to open the gun safe. Case Closed!

  36. How about passing a “Law that holds POLITICIANS CRIMINALLY ACCOUNTABLE” for “VOTING FOR LAWS THAT ARE 100% against the Majority of “WE THE PEOPLE”S WANTS AND BELIEFS” !! We need to destroy their “TWO TIERED JUSTICE SYSTEM” where all of these POLITICIANS have “ARMED GUARDS” and “WALLS AND FENCES” around their homes!!!

  37. Inthedark says:

    I guess people can not sue auto manufacturers, company’s that make and sell bicycles, motorcycles. How about suing company’s that make knives or tools for getting injured. It seems there is a dangerwith almost everything around us. Bit none of these items cannot do any harm without someone using them..

  38. Carolyn Dosch says:

    Let’s ALL Legal American’s get together & Sue the DEMOCRATS for stealing our money to keep B/S stirring. Every day is something new from them. They need to be stripped of the salaries they’re making for doing nothing!!

  39. Vince says:

    As far as I am concerned Connecticut and its Not So Supreme Court ARE IRRELEVENT! This crap will be turned over and Remington Arms and ALL related business should leave this Liberal Garbage Dump!

    ASAP

  40. Bill H. says:

    What really bothers me is all of these mass shootings may have been prevented if armed
    security was on sight or in the case of school shootings CC cameras and locked doors were
    in use. Designated qualified armed school personnel would also have helped. It is really
    amazing how stupid the people in charge of our institutions can be. Reinstate the death
    sentence, who suffers more, the victims family of the killers?

  41. Carolyn Dosch says:

    Why not put the blame where it belongs? ON THE IDIOTS DOING THE SHOOTING. The Gun DIDN’T kill anyone, the IDIOT DID!! THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY FOR THE LIBERALS & Demoncrats to cry & get their takeover!

  42. Bruce says:

    This will probably end up at the Supreme Court where it will be overturned. You can not hold the manufacturer or anything responsible for what someone decides to do with their product. Whether it be firearms used to kill people or car bombs or using a car to ram into a crowd or building. All of this is done by the NUT or Terrorist or Someone with a Definite Mental Problem, with the weapon or car. You can control who can buy certain items, but terrorists do not buy legally, they get items on the Black Market, or make or steal them.

  43. Ronald Harston says:

    How about we sue lawmakers for dumbass laws. I could get behind that.

  44. Eric says:

    Yes Larry, you can sue a hammer manufacturer. You have always been able to do that. Of course, finding a way to do it; that is another question.

    GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL. While there are a few hard core people trying to get rid of all guns, they are so far out on the fringe that nothing will ever come of it. The Second Amendment is in NO DANGER.

    • Rick says:

      You are delusionery ultermotive oh do not bother voting no everybody drinks even if just new year so prohibition will not pass . !!!!!!HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

  45. Rusty says:

    I just don’t understand if they’re gonna be able to sue the manufacturer for something they didn’t do WHY then won’t the manufacturer of cars,trucks or motorcycles be liable for any deaths resulting from the use of thier products? Or how about the makers of beer, wine whiskey …? Or how about the makers of foods that eventually cause heart attacks ???

    • Rick says:

      Or just caused FAT ! CAUSE YOU ATE THE STORE. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU EATING YOUSELF SILLY HUTSON.
      IF YOU HAVE A LAWYER OR FILE A FALSE AND FRIVOLOUS LAW SUIT IS A CRIME TOO . SO THE REVERSE IS TRUE MANUFACTURE CAN SUE FOR WRONGFUL USE OF THEIR PRODUCT . USED THEIR CAR IN A BANK ROBBERY . RAN OVER A KID IN A SCHOOL ZONE . POLUTED THE AIR EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO BREATH .

    • Carolyn Dosch says:

      Why not put the blame where it belongs? ON THE IDIOTS DOING THE SHOOTING. The Gun DIDN’T kill anyone, the IDIOT DID!! THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY FOR THE LIBERALS & Demoncrats to cry & get their takeover!

  46. walter siebert says:

    We have too many infringements already, we all want a safe country but we also know this isn’t about safety, it about taking away our second amendment rights. History tells us they have to take away our second amendment before we have total tyranny, that’s why our forefathers wrote in the second amendment !!!!

  47. Keith says:

    demonrats are responsible for the majority of mass shootings here in USA and they know it, so no I do not agree

    • Rick says:

      Have no idea what party any were registered with and never heard anybody say anything of a survey totals . Which with my experience would be highly suspect . Bias or just idiocracy ! Do not need a gun myself but it is not up for grabs in the first place as part of the amendment bill of rights . Any idea has to be written as a bill and consttutionhas to be voted on by all the people . We have been lax in the security for that too safety not just not being shot on your way home etc . You leave YHHY and he will leave you to your wrongful passions !!! Uh duh

  48. Joseph E. Laubscher Jr. says:

    Come and try to take my 2 amendment right. You will not walk away with it. You will be carried out in a body bag and my 2 amendment will still be in my pocket

  49. Nathan Paris says:

    When will these dumb asses understand? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people! Lets imagine for a moment AL guns are removed? ALL GONE! Cain killed Abel with a stone. Do you want to outlaw rocks now? Fords, chevys, Louisville Sluggers, golf clubs? I once witnessed a man beat the hell out of another with a magazine. Do you wat to stop the presses and remove all magazines from the rack?

  50. marleen davis says:

    We are so sick and tired of these democraps telling everyone how to live, how to act, how to think, etc. They are not the boss of us! We voted for our Potus and they need to stop demeaning him and let him do the job WE voted him to do. You democraps are worthless! You waste our tax dollars and hinder any work our Potus tries to do. Stop it or you will all be out of a job come 2020 and we will start prosecuting you all for espionage and hindering our government. You are traitors and you need to stop before you ruin our Republic!!!!! You democraps are selfish, money hungry evil satanists.

  51. absolutely absurd,the left has totally lost there mind ,they scare me far worse than the 2nd amendment

    • TW says:

      The Democrats make me furious. Past time for them to be removed from office. How about they get a taste of their own medicine. Our military gather ALL these POLITICIANS and SO CALLED PUBLIC SERVANTS together and load them on a military air craft and drop them in Bosnia or Sudan . Make sure and tell them that their American Citizenship has been revoked due to treason. And they WILL NOT be allowed back in our Country.

  52. Karin says:

    That is like suing the maker of the hammer because the new house just collapsed. But as I have said before the Left is NOT transparent, no matter what they say.

  53. Truckman says:

    well there goes all the knife co. ,chainsaw and axe makers because I have been hurt by all of them But the supreme court is going to have to kick this one out because they have done ruled against this one time already if they don’t crap will hit the fan

  54. Bones says:

    Connecticut extreme court is a bunch of Idiots, the Second Amendment is our Right and the Gun manufacture did not shoot anyone, the person on the other end of the Gun is to blame. Cut and Dry Idiots

    • David Rose says:

      If these dimwit politicians take our guns and we get killed because we couldn’t defend ourselves, can our relatives sue these IDIOT politicians? What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

  55. FED UP says:

    Connecticut extreme court is but a 9th district wanna b, if that follows through, then I’m going to sue the Oneida tribe for a stab wound I suffered from one of their butter knives. Toyota will be bankrupt because of their faulty gas pedals that caused so many deaths, not to mention the manufacturer of the jet liners that flew into the trade towers. I could go on with this for the next 100 pages. How cum drunk stupid can 7 people be? Maybe one of their family members should sue their daddies for loading their mamas chambers with DNA of such an impotent grain & caliber

  56. Hugh Turner says:

    Next it be suing farmers for food you let spoil

  57. trapperwv1 says:

    SCOTUS already shot this down at the federal level several years ago.

  58. Pam Minnick says:

    And once again the real problem isn’t addressed. It should be the pharmaceutical industry that they should be suing if they really feel the need to be suing someone. If someone really wants to murder, even in masses they will find away to do it. I think it’s time we back track and go back to the way we lived before everything went mad. When they took disciplining away from adults, and gave kids the power, that led to parents and teachers not being able to handle out of control kids so lets take the kids to Doctors and then they’ll give a spoiled bratty kid some name like adhd ect… and now lets start popping pills into them. A few whacks with dads belt worked and it was all natural and alot cheaper. Making kids respect adults, our country, God, and mankind in general is what worked.

    https://www.cchrint.org/2017/10/10/another-mass-shooting-another-psychiatric-drug/

  59. Larry says:

    SO I can now sue the company that makes hammers, because I hit my thumb? I can sue the company that makes paper, because I cut my finger, I can sue the maker of spoons, because it makes me fat. And of course I’ll be able to sue the company that makes cars, because they have accidents too

    • Martin says:

      Whats worse is that if someone steals your hammer or your car and kills some one then who ever made your hammer or car can be sued. And if you have some friends and you feed them and they get fat or get sick by using your spoon then they can sue the the maker of your spoon. Or if some stranger comes in your house and kills someone now the mortgage company can be sued for loaning you the money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: