Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Update on Mike Vanderboegh's condition | Main | Bribery in the NYC pistol licensing department »

Thoughts on the Bushmaster Connecticut ruling

Posted by David Hardy · 15 April 2016 02:31 PM

The media has been playing up the court's ruling allowing the Brady Campaign lawsuit against Bushmaster to proceed, notwithstanding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A look at the actual ruling rather than the news accounts shows the ruling is far less significant than the media claims.

It appears that Connecticut procedures allow a defendant to move to dismiss a case in different ways, including arguing (1) the plaintiff has no case, or (2) the court doesn't even have jurisdiction to decide whether plaintiff has a case. (It's not clear to me whether you can do both in the same motion, as you can with federal practice). Buahmaster's attorneys chose to argue (2): the PLCAA deprives a State court of jurisdiction to determine a case that the statute covers. And that's the argument that the court turned down. Assuming CT procedures permit this, Bushmaster can now proceed to argue that plaintiff doesn't have a case.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Chuck | April 15, 2016 4:35 PM | Reply

I'm not an attorney, just a legal hobbyist. Did Remington's council make a procedural error in making a pleading out of order?

Does this case possibly subject the plaintiffs to major costs and fees if they lose? At what point do the plaintiffs become responsible for defendants legal fees if plaintiffs lose the case?

JohnnyDerp | April 16, 2016 5:13 PM | Reply

Does the Judge speaking at the plaintiffs law firm create a conflict of interest?

https://www.cttriallawyers.org/events/event.cfm?EventID=2184

Geoff | April 17, 2016 11:52 AM | Reply

The Defendants will eventually win and the sorry-ass Plaintiffs will be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars just like the Aurora Theater shooting lawsuit.

Leave a comment