“Orlando victims look to Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker” the story headline of an article written by Ana Radelant and published 27 June 2016. Ana’s story opens with this paragraph.
“Washington – Families of those massacred in an Orlando nightclub are weighing whether to follow the Sandy Hook families that have filed a lawsuit against makers of assault rifles like the one Adam Lanza used to kill 20 first graders and six adults…”
Before the Sandy Hook investigation was concluded, media, gun control activists, elected officials and aspiring politicians immediately called for background checks and the banning of modern sporting rifles, alleging that Adam Lanza was able to purchase the guns used in the commission of his crimes. It was only after the “Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street,Newtown, Connecticut” was published that we discover that all firearms and ammunition used in the Sandy Hook killings were legally purchased by Adam Lanza’s mother. All federal and state laws were observed, but years later we still have gun control activists and elected officials using Sandy Hook to advance a cause that has reached an unprecedented level of falsehoods. Can anyone be that stupid, or twofaced, to use the lives of those small children to promote something that is so corrupt and self-serving? If anything the Sandy Hook families should get behind the NRA and NSSF to promote programs like Child Safe. Folks it was parental negligence that opened the door to the Sandy Hook killings not Remington or its distributors and retailers.
The Sandy Hook families are now suing Remington, the distributor and retailer using a “negligent entrustment” argument. The Plaintiffs and their attorneys claim that they are going after the AR-15; describing it as a firearm designed to inflict massive amounts of damage in a short amount of time. In addition to background checks maybe we should include I.Q. tests and a disclaimer, but anyone buying a firearm knows they’re purchasing an instrument that is potentially dangerous, and manufacturers go to extremes to communicate that point by publishing warnings on nearly every page in their owner’s manuals. Furthermore, every firearm shipped to retailers contains a steel cable lock which when used renders the firearm inoperable. As to the weapon of war concept, all of the rifles and operating systems below were weapons of war. The AR-15 is no more than a civilian version of a normal developmental progression, which is why we call it a modern semiautomatic rifle.
| Kentucky Long rifle | Flintlock | .36 ball | 1776-1816 | |
| Model 1795 Musket | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1795-1842 | |
| Model 1803 Rifle | Flintlock | .54 Ball | 1803-? | |
| Model 1812 Musket | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1812-1842 | |
| Model 1814 Rifle | Flintlock | .54 Ball | 1814-? | |
| Model 1816 Musket | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1816-1842 | |
| Model 1817 Rifle | Flintlock | .54 Ball | 1817-1842 | |
| Model 1822 Musket | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1822-1865 | |
| Springfield Model 1835 | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1835-1842 | |
| Springfield Model 1842 | Percussion cap | .69 Ball | 1842-1854 | |
| Springfield Model 1855 | Percussion cap | .58 Minié | 1854-1861 | |
| Spencer Repeating Rifle | Lever Action | 56-56 Spencer | 1860-1873 | |
| Springfield Model 1861 | Percussion cap | .58 Minié | 1861-1867 | |
| Henry Repeating Rifle | Lever Action | .44 Henry | 1862-1873 | |
| Springfield Model 1863 | Percussion cap | .58 Minié | 1863-1867 | |
| Springfield Model 1865 | Breech-loading | .58 Musket Rimfire | 1865-1867 | |
| Springfield Model 1866 | Breech-loading | .50-70 Government | 1866-1873 | |
| Springfield Model 1868 | Breech-loading | .50-70 Government | 1869-1873 | |
| Springfield Model 1873 | Breech-loading | .45-70 | 1873-1884 | |
| Springfield Model 1884 | Breech-loading | .45-70 | 1884-1894 | |
| Springfield Model 1892-99 | Bolt action | .30-40 Krag | 1894-early 1900s | |
| M1895 Lee Navy(Navy/Marines) | Straight-pull | 6mm Lee Navy | 1895-early 1900s | |
| M1903 Springfield | Bolt-action | .30-06 Springfield | 1903-1957 | |
| M1916 Mosin–Nagant | Bolt-action | 7.62×54R | 1918-c.1921 | |
| M1917 Enfield | Bolt-action | .30-06 Springfield | 1917-1943 | |
| M1 Garand | Semi-automatic | .30-06 Springfield | 1936-1963 (some used into the 1970s) | |
| M1 Carbine | Semi-automatic | .30 Carbine | 1942-1960s | |
| M2 Carbine | Selective fire | .30 Carbine | 1945-1960s | |
| M14 | Selective fire | 7.62×51mm NATO | 1959–Present | Standard issue until 1970 Currently used as a marksman rifle |
| M16 | Selective fire | 5.56×45mm NATO | 1964–Present | Standard rifle of USMC |
| M4A1 | Selective fire | 5.56×45mm NATO | 1994–Present | Standard carbine of US Army |
| MK 17 Mod 0 (FN SCAR-H) | Selective fire | 7.62×51mm NATO | 2009–present | Used by all branches of USSOCOM |
Adding insult to injury, SIG Arms is now in the crosshairs because a terrorist took 49 lives at an Orlando nightclub using one of its rifles, and it looks like the families of the victims of the Pulse Nightclub killings may be looking to the negligent entrustment argument to pursue an action against SigArms.
Read the article folks! And if it troubles you as much as it does us, contact your elected officials and ask them to protect the rights of firearm manufacturers with legislation that strengthens the PLCAA .
“Negligent Entrustment” you’ve got to be kidding me readers. I guess if some genetic defect picks up a Ginsu knife and kills 7 people with the damned thing the knife maker will have to defend a “Negligent Entrustment” suit. Take this seriously readers because it could destroy an industry and even your business. It’s unbelievable!
Have a great weekend, be safe over the 4th of July but do take in the fireworks and for God’s sake vote this election cycle there’s a lot at stake!
FOG HORN 