Vultures – LonelyMachines

A group of families, organized by the law firm of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, is planning to bring a wrongful death suit against Bushmaster Firearms because one of the company’s rifles was used in the Sandy Hook shooting. In theory, such a lawsuit would be forbidden by the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In practice, it’s not as clear.

A Bushmaster rifle was also used in the 2002 DC Beltway shootings. The Brady Campaign brought suit against them, and the company eventually settled. Doing so set a terrible precedent, and the lawyers smell blood in the water.

Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder has taken a keen interest in product-liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and their campaign contributions run a close parallel to those of the Brady Campaign. I expect to see a statement from the latter supporting this in the coming days.

BTW, the screen grab in the header was from a loopy media campaign the Bradys did a few years back. The domain must have lapsed at some point, and now…well, now it’s something in Japanese about exterminating ants with a flamethrower.

3 thoughts on “Vultures”

Chase
December 12, 2014, 3:00 am

They look like termites to me, but yeah.
Erik Post author
December 15, 2014, 7:24 pm
Here’s the actual court filing (pdf).

On page 9, they have a section entitled, “A ‘Civilian’ Weapon with no Legitimate Civilian Purpose.” The first allegation is that, “there is no evidence that semiautomatic rifles are commonly used for, or necessary for, legitimate self-defense by law-abiding citizens.” It goes on.

On page 11, they argue that such weapons should only be entrusted to the military.

The first wrongful-death count begins on page 17.
- Bushmaster should have known that marketing their rifles “posed an unreasonable and egregious risk of physical injury to others.”
- They knew, or should have known, “of the civilian population’s poor track record of safely securing weapons.”
- They knew, or should have known, of an “unreasonably high risk” that their weapons would be used in mass shootings.
- The use of their rifles for “hunting, sporting, or self defense was negligible in comparison to the risk that the weapon would be used in its assaultive [is that a word?] capacity.
- They should have used technology that prevents the rifle from being used by anyone besides the actual owner.
- It goes on to imply that Camfour and the gun dealer are also responsible based on those factors.
In case all this sounds familiar, it’s the same set of arguments we’ve been hearing from lawmakers for years. Essentially, they’re trying to get judges to legislate from the bench. I’d say this doesn’t have much of a chance, but we’re talking about Connecticut, here.
Chase
December 17, 2014, 4:37 am

They make no arguments that are not sooner or later applicable to every single firearm of any type.

Eugene Volokh posted about it on The Volokh Conspiracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/lawsuit-filed-against-gun-manufacturers-and-dealers-over-sandy-hook-murders/

Comments are closed.