I saw that coming..

[people]

"assault weapons", "not suitable for sporting", "no justified reason for civilian ownership","Military firepower" , "made to hurt other humans"

Although I am against banning them, assault weapons are everything you said above, and I don't see any reasons for civilians to own them either. If I had a reason, I'd own one. I used to own an H&K HK91 (7.62 NATO assault rifle), but no longer do.

Just so we are all on the same page the HK91 is semi-automatic only.

 

[michaelnel]

Just so we are all on the same page the HK91 is semi-automatic only. Not an "assault rifle" now if you were lucky and had a G3 you would have had an assault rifle. Granted ca does not allow for law abiding citizens to have NFA items so a G3 would not have been possible unless you had moved to ca from a free state.

In those days (early 1980s), one could buy Rock & Roll kits in Shotgun News to enable selective fire. One could install one of those and the HK91 would become, in effect, a G3.

Not saying I did such an evil thing, because that would have been illegal. ;-)

 

[bobinpa]

"assault weapons", "not suitable for sporting", "no justified reason for civilian ownership","Military firepower" , "made to hurt other humans"

Although I am against banning them, assault weapons are everything you said above, and I don't see any reasons for civilians to own them either. If I had a reason, I'd own one. I used to own an H&K HK91 (7.62 NATO assault rifle), but no longer do.

You must be joking around because.......
1. Almost any weapon can be labeled as an "assault" weapon if the intent is to assault with it.
2. 3 gun events are considered sporting events.
3. People hunt with AR rifles and hunting is a sport.
4. The second amendment wasn't written about sporting events or hunting. It was put in place to protect the civilians against a tyranical government. Therefore, if or when the government of this country becomes too tyranical, the civilians will want/need as much firepower as possible. If they are banned or even if we just quit buying them, they will go away and we won't have that option if the need arises....

Just hearing about the lawsuit makes me want to buy another one just to make sure the manufacturers are still making money.......

Does anyone know if anyone has set up a legal defense fund for the defendants? I'd like to contribute if it exsists.

 

[people]

In those days (early 1980s), one could buy Rock & Roll kits in Shotgun News to enable selective fire. One could install one of those and the HK91 would become, in effect, a G3.

Not saying I did such an evil thing, because that would have been illegal. ;-)

Yes you could and you can still buy those parts. What is your point?

 

[dickn52]

No body, no crime.

That would have nothing to do with this suit. Criminal law is "a crime has been committed and the suspect has committed this crime "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". However, in a civil law suit, it is "damage has been done, and the defendant is responsible for the damage provable by a "preponderance of the evidence". This is a MUCH LOWER standard of "proof" than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Therefore civil litigation is, by definition, much more dangerous to our sport (guns) than any criminal event could ever hope to to be.. They can't legislate us out of existence, however, they can sue us so that it becomes unprofitable to operate and we go out of business DeFacto.

So this is not a product liability case? Because if that were so, the rifle performed, darnit. If it didn't, then the shooter would sue for a faulty weapon.

 

[jwink]

This whole thing is like sueing Ford because a drunk driver used one of their trucks to kill a mother and her kids in a mini van... tragic? ...yes!... Ford's fault?... not the least. Just a bunch of lawyers taking peoples money. This was no one's fault but the mentally screwed up person that pulled the trigger. PERIOD!

 

[22BRGUY]

Assault Weapons???? What the heck does that mean??
When I was younger, I shot many squirrels, rabbits and other small game...many with a single shot .22 with short .22 ammunition, and some with BB and Pellt guns.
I will guarantee anyone that if those animals could talk, they would say they were "assaulted".

 

[jonbearman]

An assault weapon as per the DOD is a machine gun period.

 

[michaelnel]

According to The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia Dept of Injustice, any gun derived from an AK or AR-15 is an assault weapon. So are the HK91 and HK93 and a long list of other autoloading rifles with pistol grips and removable magazines.

Be thankful you do not live in the land of Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf?

 

[Hammerhead]

Well if this does go to court we will see the medical reports and they will have to state if it was indeed .223 that killed those kids.

I think this arrogant bottom feeder should loose his licesense to practice.

Tim

 

[John from MN]

The truth of the matter is that a mentally ill individual took the lives of their children.

Accepting that truth is the only way these folks are going to find any peace.

Money isn't going to help.

Blaming gun manufacturers and retailers isn't going to help.

 

[22BRGUY]

An assault weapon as per the DOD is a machine gun period.

Well then why don't they just call them "machine guns"?

My point is that the term "assault weapon" is an emotionally charged term that has been put into play by the political machine against gun ownership, especially for any type of automatic or semi automatic firearm. People who are familiar with firearms realize the meaning as you described, however my bet is that if you asked the majority of non gun owners what the term "assault weapon" means, they would be hard pressed to describe much if anything of the design of these weapons....but they know they just don't like them because they must only be used to assault people.

 

[22BRGUY]

Here's a poll that should make us all smile a little

http://marketdailynews.com/2014/12/16/americans-favor-protecting-gun-rights-over-stricter-government-gun-control-laws-for-the-first-time-in-20-years/

 

[Pinsnscrews]

Well if this does go to court we will see the medical reports and they will have to state if it was indeed .223 that killed those kids.

I think this arrogant bottom feeder should loose his licesense to practice.

Tim

Due to the fact it was violence against a minor, such reports would remain sealed unless required by a superior court to unseal such reports. Also, as this is a Civil case, medical reports are unnecessary. As previously mentioned, in a Civil case it is a "preponderance" of evidence. Shell casings at the scene are all that is necessary unless the manufacturer can show the casiings did not in fact get ejected from their model rifle. This is not a "Products Defect" case, but rather a "Products Misuse" case.

As also previously mentioned, this is a Political move for free advertising via the news agencies. For those not in the know, the woman who "Won the Million dollar award" against McDonalds ended up with far less after the settlement was appealed and reviewed.

 

[jonbearman]

This will make your toes curl. DiBlasio just offered gardener's wife a settlement out of court at the tune of 75 million dollars of our tax money but her lawyer did the right thing and turned it down. He told her he could get way more. He was the poor soul that got choked by the police supposedly. Remember that these sue them for all they have lawyers get 45% of the take minus any court costs.

 

[digrazir]

This will make your toes curl. DiBlasio just offered gardener's wife a settlement out of court at the tune of 75 million dollars of our tax money but her lawyer did the right thing and turned it down. He told her he could get way more. He was the poor soul that got choked by the police supposedly. Remember that these sue them for all they have lawyers get 45% of the take minus any court costs.

The way I read the article NYC would like to settle the 75 million dollar law suite out of court. Maybe I am missing something but I did not see where the Garner family was actually offered 75 million let alone turning it down. Ray

 

[22BRGUY]

Just to clarify my problem with the term "assault weapon" a bit more, the word "assault" in my Websters New Dictionary is defined as: 1) a violent "attack"; 2) an "unlawful" attempt to do harm to another.

For those unfamiliar with firearms, I can easily understand that going by this "definition" how they could support the idea of banning these type of weapons, They could easily conclude that these weapons are never used to "defend" one's life, property, or family which of course is ridiculous. Make no mistake this word "assault" or term "assault weapon" was not chosen by any mistake by those who coined it. It is a very cunning play on words to sway the emotions of the public at large IMHO.

In this world we live in, words are important, and the more we can expose these terms for what they are really about, the greater chance that people can see the truth.

Our second amendment guarantees citizens the right to DEFEND their lives, property and family; not the right to aggressively attack anyone, and these weapons described as "assault" weapons are some of the best defensive weapons available to serve that purpose.