Parkland Victim Lawsuit Claims Gun Manufacturer, Seller Responsible | Teddy Stick

Parkland Victim Lawsuit Claims Gun Manufacturer, Seller Responsible

Hogg (pictured right) and others are encouraging mindless lawsuits.

When guns save innocent life, we never see liberals running to pin medals onto gun manufacturers, but when horror strikes, they sure want to sue them. The “families of two victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting on Wednesday sued the maker and seller of the weapon,” according to the Orlando Sentinel.

The parents of both Jaime Guttenberg and Alex Schachter wrongly feel that the gun maker is partially to blame for the actions of the shooter, Nikolas Cruz. They are seeking damages from American Outdoor Brands, formally Smith & Wesson, as well as Sunrise Tactical Supply. It did not take long for the frivolous lawsuit to see the light of day.

The Broward County Court lawsuit says that the family seeks “to hold defendants legally responsible for their complicity in the entirely foreseeable, deadly use of the assault-style weapons that they place on the market.” So far, the judge has not ruled that gun makers can be held responsible for such crimes, a ruling that would be utterly absurd if allowed.

A confusingly written Florida statute stands in the way,” the attorneys whined. Of course, car manufacturers are not held responsible when drunk drivers kill.

Thankfully, “If the defendants claim that [the law] entitles them to immunity from such claims, and the courts agree,” the attorneys say that the companies legal fees will need to be paid by those foolish enough to bring the suit.

The “2001 law, Florida Statute 790.331, explicitly prohibits state, county and city government agencies from suing businesses over the legal manufacture and sale of weapons that are later used unlawfully.” It does not say if citizens may sue on such grounds, however. This is the newest loophole that the rabid gun grabbers are hoping to latch onto.

It the weapon is faulty, lawsuits can happen (particularly if someone was harmed due to it) but “the potential of a firearm or ammunition to cause serious injury, damage, or death as a result of normal function does not constitute a defective condition of the product,” according to the law.

The answer, of course, is not fewer guns, but more of them. If teachers who are legally allowed to carry firearms anyhow had been allowed to do so in that school (and if they choose to without force), Cruz may have thought twice. If not, he would have likely met his end much sooner.

If bringing guns onto school grounds is already illegal, this shows that criminals like Cruz will break the law. Therefore, if guns are made illegal, why would a killer such as he obey the new law about banning when he did not obey the existing law forbidding the killing?

These are the kinds of common sense questions which cause many people to hope against all hope that the judge does the right thing and throws this case into the rubbish pile.