Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[Valerie]

Clinton "is not totally off base," said John Goldberg, a professor at Harvard Law School and specialist in tort law. He said Congress was particularly "aggressive" in granting the gun industry this legal shield.

"Congress has rarely acted to bar the adoption by courts of particular theories of liability against a particular class of potential defendants, especially when that form of liability has not yet been recognized by the courts," he said.

At the time that the law passed, the NRA argued that the industry needed the protection, because — unlike carmakers, for example — it did not have the "deep pockets" necessary to fight a slew of lawsuits, as the New York Times reported.





Gun-rights advocates have also argued that suing a gun company for crimes committed with its products is akin to suing a car company for drunken-driving fatalities.

But the issues at hand are more complex, say some legal scholars.

"It's more like — are you a bartender and do you keep on pouring drinks for someone?" as Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell told NPR. That might be a better way to think about whether manufacturers shouldn't supply certain stores, he says.

For an example of how this plays out, look at Adames v. Beretta. In this case, a 13-year-old boy removed the clip from his father's Beretta handgun, believing that made the gun safe, and then accidentally shot his 13-year-old friend. The victim's family sued Beretta, saying the company could have made the pistol safer and provided more warnings, according to SCOTUSBlog. Citing the PLCAA, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed Adames' claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the case.

Victims of gun crimes like the Adames family may or may not have good cases, but PLCAA opponents say plaintiffs should at least be heard in court.




^ bingo

 

[kaz]

A lot of leftists actually do propose banning guns, read the threads.

But as for the rest of you, when guns are at home in safes because they aren't allowed to be carried, what good does that do you?

NO, dumbass....no one except your ilk is saying to "ban guns".....We are talking here about assault weapons that are manufactured ONLY to kill in short time as many people as possible,

You right wingers are either idiots or are lying to yourselves.

Really, is that what you Republicans propose? And how are right wing nut jobs like you going to keep criminals from buying illegal

A lot of leftists actually do propose banning guns, read the threads.

But as for the rest of you, when guns are at home in safes because they aren't allowed to be carried, what good does that do you?

NO, dumbass....no one except your ilk is saying to "ban guns".....We are talking here about assault weapons that are manufactured ONLY to kill in short time as many people as possible,

You right wingers are either idiots or are lying to yourselves.

Republicans just don't want to deal with reality, do you? RWNJ

 

[Rustic]

Gun companies do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.

To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.


Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."


In 2000, for example, New York City joined 30 counties and cities in suing gun manufacturers, saying manufacturers should have been making their products safer and also better tracking where their products were sold. Manufacturers, one argument at the time went, should stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes.


In response to these lawsuits, the NRA pushed for the law, which passed in 2005 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Then-Sen. Clinton voted against it; her current Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, voted for it.

FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers 'Totally Free Of Liability For Their Behavior'?

15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm

How About let's blame the criminal... You know, the one who pulled the trigger with no help from anyone else. Dumbass

 

[Brain357]

Will be a tough case to win.

 

[Rustic]

Will be a tough case to win.

Just like any frivolous lawsuit, no point to it… The country has much bigger fish to fry. Dumbass

 

[kaz]

All your gun laws do is kill innocent people.

Sure......the Brady Bill "killed" thousands of innocent people.......right???

The Brady bill had no real impact one way or the other, even the CDC says gun laws don't reduce crime.

Totally useless law

 

[Valerie]

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that, under Heller, assault weapons may be banned in the interest of protecting public safety. By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban imposed in 2013 by the Illinois city of Highland Park, which acted in response to the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The Newtown killer used a legally acquired large-capacity assault rifle known as an AR-15.

Heller did not establish a right to keep any weapon for any purpose, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel. The Supreme Court did not question long-standing federal bans on fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians, he added. The question, said Easterbrook, is: "Where does the balance of danger lie?"


If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?

Ronald Reagan with James Brady. Credit Walt Zebowski/Associated Press


The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?_r=1

 

[kaz]

it also exists in the minds of those who blindly put corporate profits over concerns for public safety.

And THAT is what this is really all about. Its why the NRA has paid so much money to R congress slime.

It is astounding that all these people put corporate profit over the lives of children but that's what they care about.

There are 310 million guns in the United States, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world. And you're going to keep them from criminals how exactly?

You're the ones murdering children, all you do is prevent people from protecting themselves. Honest citizens follow the law. The funny thing about criminals is they don't follow the law. You didn't see that one coming. But there was a hint. They are criminals ...

Societies that do not allow guns have a much smaller problem with criminals getting guns. Sure, they can in some cases, but it is very difficult.

Tell that to the folks in Paris.

France's murder rate is well below ours as are all OECD countries.

And as I keep pointing out, there are a plethora of differences between us and France besides gun laws. To conclude gun laws will make us the same is mentally challenged. And as I also keep pointing out, as the population of France keeps getting more diverse like us, murder rates are shooting up.

John Adams: Facts are stubborn things

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that, under Heller, assault weapons may be banned in the interest of protecting public safety. By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban imposed in 2013 by the Illinois city of Highland Park, which acted in response to the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The Newtown killer used a legally acquired large-capacity assault rifle known as an AR-15.

Heller did not establish a right to keep any weapon for any purpose, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel. The Supreme Court did not question long-standing federal bans on fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians, he added. The question, said Easterbrook, is: "Where does the balance of danger lie?"


If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?

Ronald Reagan with James Brady. Credit Walt Zebowski/Associated Press


The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?_r=1

Did you know that automatic and semi-automatic weapons were allowed to cross the border into Mexico, because the Obama FBI allowed it with the Fast and Furious agenda? A US border patrol agent was executed by one of these weapons? Should Obama and Eric(the racist) Holder be sued by the grieving family of the border agent?
Documents confirm Eric Holder’s role in Fast and Furious cover-up

Documents confirm Eric Holder’s role in Fast and Furious cover-up

Shame law abiding citizens get punished when liberals let bad guys get guns.

 

[kaz]

That's ludicrous straw man fallacy, guns don't make people turn bad...or else they would kill with other weapons

I didn't say the gun made them turn bad, but what do you do when a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime decides to shoot his entire family? This happens quite frequently.

Someone who murders his own family was never "good people."

And your thought that not having a gun means they give up and don't kill their family is based on what exactly?

It means it's not as easy for them to do it. Here is a simple fact that gun lovers refuse to admit. Countries that do not allow guns have much much lower homicide rates than we do in the US. That is just a fact that cannot be ignored. More guns equate to more deaths.

Thats just a flat out lie. Australias murders went down for a year or so then they went right back up. Now the weapon of choice seams to be a hammer. As it did with all the other countries I have seen the statistics on.I call BS on this one.

Australia's murder rate is more than six times that of the US.

No it's not, you are full of shit

 

[2aguy]

How do you know she did not secure the guns? The notes they have from the shooter show he was planning this for about 2 years........do you really think a methodical planner, who was willing to commit murder of children......couldn't have gotten past whatever she did to secure her weapons?

according to the news stories, he and his mom had been gun enthusiasts who frequented shooting ranges since he was very young. doesn't seem there was anything illegal with what they did or owned, until the day he snapped. the mom may have failed to secure the weapons properly but he would have got around that anyway... she also failed to take his mental illness seriously, maybe she was also mentally ill. hard to say how things could have gone differently or what law could prevent random acts of violence, but there are mental health check points for a reason, and somehow these kooks still had an arsenal of weapons that included weapons that have no other lawful purpose than massive assault on people, with no legitimate rationale for any lawful purpose... so this story demonstrates a few weak spots in the law that we should somehow tighten up, so as to prevent or diminish possibility of other incidents...

whatever happened in this story is not the be-all and end-all to rationalize the need for stricter gun laws, so your harping on the semantics of this case, or that case, or any case, is really beside the point... in some instances there are liability issues with gun manufacturers and some instances the liability falls elsewhere, or even nowhere at all... regardless of minutia from case to case, the public should have the ability to make a liability claim and argue their legal case. the fact remains that there is no legit reason for gun manufacturers to be comfortably shielded by a law which blindly relinquishes them from any culpability whatsoever.

Wrong on all counts......none of those weapons is a military grade weapon. 7 guns...an arsenal? Do you think before you post? Have you ever heard of self defense...a lawful purpose....how about competition....? How about just collecting for the sake of collecting guns...just like stamps......

As was pointed out...if the police can have a gun....we get the gun..........we pay their salaries..we supply their equipment......not the other way around. Dittos the military...any rifle the military has, we paid for .....and we also get to own....we are not serfs........they are not our masters......

 

[2aguy]

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that, under Heller, assault weapons may be banned in the interest of protecting public safety. By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban imposed in 2013 by the Illinois city of Highland Park, which acted in response to the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The Newtown killer used a legally acquired large-capacity assault rifle known as an AR-15.

Heller did not establish a right to keep any weapon for any purpose, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel. The Supreme Court did not question long-standing federal bans on fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians, he added. The question, said Easterbrook, is: "Where does the balance of danger lie?"


If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?

Ronald Reagan with James Brady. Credit Walt Zebowski/Associated Press


The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?_r=1

Yes....thanks for pointing out that if you give gun grabbers an inch they will take a mile......gun grabbers interpret the statement about the decision not exluding regulation of guns to mean you get to regulate them out of existence...we get it...we know what you want...and we are going to fight you ......in the courts and at the ballot box.

Oh....and this is another lie.....

The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise.

gun murder in 2014....8,124.

Accidental gun deaths 2013... 505

Where are the 10s of thousands.....if you guys can't lie you can't make an argument......

No, there was never any flexibility between the parties.....you gun grabbers never intended to take common sense rules and then step back....you have always intended to ban all guns....and to incrementally ban what you can get now...and slowly get the rest....

 

[skookerasbil]

[
Nope, but his facination with mass shootings and his reclusive behavior would maybe make a person nervous about leaving guns laying about.

what evidence is there that she kept guns laying around

hint-GUN SAFES protect your weapons when you are away

YOU protect your weapons when you are present

fact-IF I AM WILLING to kill someone to get their weapons, I am probably willing to do something SHORT OF KILLING to get them to open a gun safe

Other then how you feel about it, how do you know they weren't on a rack on the wall? And still, how did he get the .22 he shot her in the head with 6 times ?

The following is a complete accounting of all the firearms, magazines, and ammunition that was available to Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012. All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.

FIREARMS

Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:

Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun

Found in Lanza Home:

Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle
Enfield Albian bolt-action .323-caliber rifle
Volcanic .22-caliber starter pistol

The Savage Mark II bolt-action .22-caliber rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill his mother.

MAGAZINES

Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:

Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
10 30-round .223 magazines
6 30-round 9mm magazines
6 30-round 10mm magazines

Found in Lanza Home:

Clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR-15
Three AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines (empty)
One Promag 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
One MDArms 20 round 12-gauge drum magazine
Two AGP Arms lnc. 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds
Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
AGP Arms Inc. Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine
Magazine with 10 rounds of .223-caliber bullets

AMMUNITION

Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:

20 12-gauge shotgun rounds
301 rounds of .233-caliber ammunition
116 rounds of .9mm ammunition
90 rounds of 10mm ammunition


The Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Found in Lanza Home:

Five Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells, cut open, with buckshot
White plastic bag containing 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
Box with 20 Estate 12-gauge shotgun shells
Four boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 40 rounds
Box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
Six “Winchester” 9 pellet buckshot shells (12-gauge)
Two Remington 12-gauge slugs
Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge 9 pellet buck
Planters can with numerous .22 and .45 caliber bullets
Wooden box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45-caliber bullets
Two boxes of PPU .45 caliber auto., 100 rounds
Box of “Fiocchi” .45-caliber auto with 48 rounds
Box of Magtech .45-caliber ACP with 30 rounds
Tan bag containing numerous Blazer .45-caliber bullets
Box containing 400 rounds of Winchester Wildcat .22-caliber bullets
Two boxes of .22-caliber long rifle Blazer, 100 rounds
80 rounds of CCI .22-caliber long rifle
31 .22-caliber rounds
Small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
Full box of Blazer .22 caliber long rifle, 50 rounds
Box of 20 Prvi Partizan .30-30 British rifle cartridges
Box of 20 Federal .303 British rifle cartridges
Box of PPU .303-caliber British cartridges with 9 rounds
Box of 20 rounds of Remington .223-caliber
Three Winchester .223-caliber rifle rounds
Six boxes of PMC .223-caliber, 20 rounds each
Three boxes of Blazer 40-caliber S&W, 150 rounds
Two boxes of Winchester 5.56mm, 40 rounds
Two boxes of Underwood 10mm auto, 100 rounds
Box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
130 rounds of Lawman 9mm luger in 3 boxes
Box of miscellaneous 9mm rounds, 29 total
Two Win 9mm rounds
Small box of miscellaneous rounds

When Adam killed his sleeping, defenseless mother as she lay in bed, his choice of weapon was the Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm that can accept a 10-round magazine. When it came time to travel to Sandy Hook to commit mass murder—and potentially expose himself to harm from responding law enforcement—Lanza discarded the Savage rifle and turned to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semiautomatic rifle that he equipped with 30-round magazines so as to cut down on the number of times he would have to reload.

What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary

Oooooops..........forgot about the 12G shotgun in the glove compartment of the Honda......with several boxes of shotshells as well!!

Official reports stated that hundreds of rounds were fired in the school. Clearly very easy for a 120 pound kid to lug 3 weapons around the school, hundreds of rounds of ammo at the same time and have the most prolific shot-kill ratio of any mass murderer of all time!!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that, under Heller, assault weapons may be banned in the interest of protecting public safety. By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban imposed in 2013 by the Illinois city of Highland Park, which acted in response to the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The Newtown killer used a legally acquired large-capacity assault rifle known as an AR-15.

Heller did not establish a right to keep any weapon for any purpose, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel. The Supreme Court did not question long-standing federal bans on fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians, he added. The question, said Easterbrook, is: "Where does the balance of danger lie?"


If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?

Ronald Reagan with James Brady. Credit Walt Zebowski/Associated Press


The public health challenge posed by the tens of thousands of Americans shot to death each year wasn’t always the subject of such a toxic partisan divide. There used to be a bit of flexibility between the parties before the gun lobby so relentlessly targeted politicians who dared to consider compromise.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?_r=1

If Hillary Clinton Bans Assault Weapons, Would It Be Constitutional?

I am at the point in my life that if the government tries to take away my 2nd amendment rights, then those trying, may not like the results. Over 100,000,000 US citizens own guns. You will find that the constitution supersedes any executive actions that a vagina president wants to sign. Did you notice how a liberal politicians says guns are bad , yet walks around with guys protecting that liberal with automatic guns? You liberals aren't worth being saved, that is why you don't get armed guards and are preyed upon by criminals.

 

[nat4900]

Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???


In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

 

[Uncensored2008]

"The anti-Constitutional stance of the left on clear display for all to see."

Not true at all.

The only people who talk about banning are the gun nutters.

They are instructed to do that as a smoke screen to hide the real issues - which are being discussed in this thread.

You may be stupid Pillowbite, but you make up for it by lying incessantly.

nat4900 said: ↑
The point is so simple that it defies logic.....The point IS that such lethal weapons should NEVER be sold to common citizens.

 

[kaz]

Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???


In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

What could go wrong? Like you're in a school or office and someone comes in and starts shooting people room by room and you have no gun to defend yourself? Or you could have a gun, be in the military and be trained to use guns, but you don't have it with you because Clinton decided not to allow guns in parking lots in DC and someone starts shooting you and you have no way to fight back? Your estranged, abusive ex husband approaches you with a gun and you're fucked, he kills you but you're in a parking lot banning guns and can't have one? OH wait, those are "what could go wrong" with your plan ...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???


In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

So Comrade, if we end civil rights as you demand, there will be no more suicides?

"killed" implies "killed by."

Look, you're a Communist, you have not a hint of a shred of integrity, I get it.

But suicides are not "killed."

Sure, you HAVE to be dishonest, it's your nature and your whole bullshit scheme to end civil rights falls apart if you don't lie.

But sploogy, how many people are "killed by" another person with a gun each year?


Hmmm?

 

[kaz]

Keep "stoking" your guns, right wingers.....I mean, what could go wrong???


In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

So Comrade, if we end civil rights as you demand, there will be no more suicides?

"killed" implies "killed by."

Look, you're a Communist, you have not a hint of a shred of integrity, I get it.

But suicides are not "killed."

Sure, you HAVE to be dishonest, it's your nature and your whole bullshit scheme to end civil rights falls apart if you don't lie.

But sploogy, how many people are "killed by" another person with a gun each year?


Hmmm?

Yes, he is intellectually dishonest. The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways

 

[SwimExpert]

Being able to sue people who didn't do anything is setting a HUGE precedent.

Actually, it's always been permissible to sue people who didn't do anything. Anyone can file suit against anyone for anything. The question is whether the suit will be successful.

The ruling that everyone is freaking out about is nothing more than a media created spectacle. It was a procedural matter which the defendants probably didn't even expect to win in the first place. All the court said is that the defense that was raised isn't applicable to pre-trial dismissal.