Nevada Judge Allows Suit to Move Forward Alleging AR-15s Should be Considered Machine Guns

Does the existence of bump stocks transform all AR-15s into machine guns? One federal judge thinks so.

A federal judge in Nevada has allowed a lawsuit to move forward that alleges semi-automatic AR-15s should be considered machine guns because they can be converted to simulate fully automatic fire using bump stocks.

The suit is being brought against several gun makers and dealers, including Colt and Daniel Defense, by the family of a woman killed in the Las Vegas massacre in 2017.

The Parsons family and their attorneys asserted three causes of action, two of which were dismissed by U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon. But Judge Gordon allowed the suit to move forward based on the plaintiff’s wrongful death claim, arguing that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not bar the suit from continuing.

The case will next be considered by the Nevada Supreme Court.

“We’re pleased that Judge Gordon certified these questions to the Nevada Supreme Court. We’re optimistic that the Supreme Court is not going to rule that the legislature intended to give immunity to companies that intentionally violate the law,” said one of the Parsons family attorneys, Rich Friedman.

SEE ALSO: Court Rules No Compensation for Companies Forced to Destroy 75,000 Bump Stocks

The Parsons argue that gun makers should be held accountable for their daughter’s death because they should have foreseen that someone could have modified their rifles with bump stocks to turn them into machine guns. Under this line of thinking, the manufacturers and dealers violated federal and Nevada laws prohibiting machine guns to be sold except as authorized by the National Firearms Act.

The judge also argued that the PLCAA, which would normally protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits, might not apply in this case because it includes an exception for companies that knowingly violate state or federal statutes. Gun dealers are not protected under the PLCAA, in other words, because they illegally sold “machine guns” to the Las Vegas shooter.  

“The Parsons plead facts from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the shooter’s use of an AR-15 modified to shoot automatically in a mass shooting was reasonably foreseeable,” Judge Gordon said. “The Parsons plead facts showing that the defendants’ AR-15s could be easily modified with bump stocks to shoot automatically, which the shooter did with tragic results. So the Parsons have sufficiently alleged causation.”

It’s important to keep in mind that the judge’s ruling does not have force of law in Nevada or anywhere else. He is just allowing the suit to move forward after Colt filed a motion to dismiss, and the Nevada Supreme Court will be able to rule on the case, barring any further action.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over four years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco. Follow him on Instagram @bornforgoodluck and email him at jordan@gunsamerica.com.

{ 137 comments… add one }
  • Pecos Pete May 11, 2020, 12:19 pm

    Q: If you call the tail a leg, how many does a dog have?

    A: Four

    But you said if you call the tail a leg. Answer should be five.

    No, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.

  • John Boutwell May 11, 2020, 10:39 am

    So if an automobile can go faster than the speed limit it should not be legal?

  • Jakefarm May 11, 2020, 5:08 am

    We’re past our 2nd amendment right argument. We are now into a battle between politicians with agendas and people trying to secure power by exploiting this topic for their benefit. Americans who simply love or want to protect themselves from mass shooters and people who are threats to the persons around them. The question is, how are the “victims” (and I hate using that term) going to defend them selves when even the lawmakers KNOW shootings are still going to happen? How about we educate the American public on firearm/weapons training to discourage these #f***ed loonies who are WITHOUT A DOUBT going to obtain a weapon leaving the rest of us vulnerable to their psychotic acts of violence…? F**K THAT. Knowledge is power…and that power is in the form of self defense and training. TRAIN THE PUBLIC. PUT SELF DEFENSE TRAINING IN SCHOOL BOOKS. Above all, send some lead and smell the powder ladies and gents! We don’t need militias (in most areas) or armed groups. What we need are educated civilians Who know and can properly handle a firearm if the possibility ever arises, and it seems to grow exponentially year to year. Open our eyes. #donationsaccepted #merica #pewpewmuthaf***as

  • Jakefarm May 11, 2020, 4:51 am

    Y’all serious? Still trying to do away with American AR-15s and AR pistols? How are we going to defend ourselves when a threat initiates contact? Pull a Louis C.K. with our d*** in our hands? Pshh I see a creation of a rebellious militia which hopefully never happens. Point is, arm the ones who still have the right, people who commit crimes WILL find a way to maintain firepower leaving the “law abiding citizens” DEFENSELESS. Shall I continue?

  • Dan Robbins May 11, 2020, 2:36 am

    An amazingly perfect example of ignorance.

    There were hundreds of replys, I did not have the wherewithal to read them all, so I’m sure I’m repeating something already said multiple times.

    I am no lawyer, but thanks to public schools, I have a smidge of an ability to read and comprehend. Facts only from here on.

    The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines “machine gun” to include any combination of
    parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot,
    without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

    This was quoted in the above article, within the attached document.

    Bump stocks were originally declared legal because they did not (and still don’t) violate the BATF’s definition of a machine gun. A bump stock simply bounces a lazy person’s sausage finger (couch ninja, i.e. an individual lacking any kind of drive to acquire and practice the skills necessary to control a firearm) on and off the trigger, each movement still being a separate actuation of the trigger, thus firing individual shots.

    The case’s foundation is built on the manufacturer’s supposed knowledge of the gun being able to be made fully automatic. The firearm used was a completely legal semi-automatic rifle. That means one pull of the trigger fires one shot. That’s it. The young lady in question was not killed by a machine gun, or an automatic firearm, by the BATF’s own definition.

    All that being said, I cannot imagine the pain the family has been subjected to, as I’ve not lost a family member to this type of violence. If this had happened to my family, i would probably also lash out in any direction.

    I blame their counsel for being ignorant, and more so for making an effort to aim and focus the cause at the manufacturers as the ones who should bear the blame.

    These are the people who make me want to fly my/OUR flag upside down, but I have too much respect to actually do it.

  • e May 10, 2020, 5:22 pm

    My car can be modified to go faster than it was designed to go. Lets all bring suit against the big 3. This judge should resign his post immediately. This is the kind of “crazy” that is destroying our once great America.

  • Rob May 10, 2020, 4:41 pm

    This might actually be a good thing. Allowing the suit to go forward and then possibly be overturned by the Supreme Court of NV will help put a stop to future frivolous lawsuits.

    Sometimes, you have to give a fool all the rope they can muster.

  • Robert Martin May 9, 2020, 7:48 pm

    What kind of B.S. is this, plastic Bump stocks some how became a machine gun, according to a new definition from the ATF. Let’s see, there is no moving parts, and they approved in years back. Now the President took
    “Executive Action” and somehow this is legal to say he is outlawing them. I thought Congress made laws, and the President signed them into law, AFTER both houses pass them.

    It’s already illegal to have a bumpstock, It’s also illegal to possess a machine gun under the NFA unless you have a tax stamp for that weapon. It is illegal to possess any type machine gun made after 1986, unless you have a FFL and SOT license. Some require a LEO letter.
    AR15 rifles are nothing more than a rifle. Yes you could modify one to go full auto, then you now have become a criminal. 10 years in the penitentiary and up to $250,000 fine.
    Anyone with mechanical sense and some tooling, could modify most any weapon to fire full auto.
    There is no difference between an AR15 and any other magazine fed weapon.
    Don’t fall for the B.S. out there.

  • Jay May 9, 2020, 1:21 am

    We need to take exception with judges taking actions against things about which they know little or nothing at all. It needs must have attention called to the fact that judges should not be making any decisions based solely (or even partially) upon their own personal bias and political agendas. The very calling of a judge is that they be above such things and render decisions based solely upon the facts of any issues before them. These days, that is the exception rather than the rule. For that matter, any “judge” NOT standing foursquare for or against any particular agenda will soon find themselves stripped of their robes and off their bench. That rather guarantees that and sitting judge these days will be bought and paid for by somebody or other(s).
    Annnywayyy…
    Concerning the specific issue of the article in question; There is a hidden threat not necessarily immediately apparent here. That being that knowing they can expect a lot of support in any action against so-called “ugly” guns and then having once established any such bans they can be translated, (AFTER THE FACT!), against virtually every semi-auto weapon ever made and currently in legal private possession.
    THAT is the real threat in this move.

  • Thomas May 8, 2020, 9:13 pm

    We have to remember Trump is from N Y so he made a mistake the best thing he can do to correct it is repeal ‘86 gun control act and tax machine guns when they are manufactured and sold , As far as I know a legally registered machine has never Been used in a crime by a legal
    owner.

  • Al Fehr May 8, 2020, 7:51 pm

    There is a already a definition of what is a “machine gun” on the books . Bump stocks are already illegal so can’t see how they have grounds for a lawsuit…

  • Randy Crawford May 8, 2020, 6:46 pm

    It is reasonably foreseeable that this judge could possibly someday develop a brain tumor and turn into a violent sadistic mass murderer. Therefore, he/she/it obviously needs to be imprisoned and placed in restraints today, before becoming more of a threat to society.

  • samuel meola May 8, 2020, 5:57 pm

    you can tell if someone knows anything about guns as we all can see that judge dont know much about anything except to sit his ass on a chair behind a desk and make stupid remarks.

  • Penrose21 May 8, 2020, 4:16 pm

    This lawsuit is just the beginning. If a ruling is passed that AR-15s should be classified as machine guns because they can be converted from semi-auto to full auto, then virtually all semi-auto firearms will be next. With a few changes, most semi-autos CAN be converted to full auto. This will be the democrats’ back door into total gun registration or bans.

    Of course the entire premise is bogus. Millions of items manufactured for a specific purpose (matches, spoons, cars, 2x4s, plastic bags, etc., etc.) can be repurposed to kill people. Should they all be reclassified as weapons and regulated as such by the government? Maybe we need to require FBI background checks every time we purchase a baseball bat, rope or power drill. No doubt leftists believe so, at least when they are owned/purchased by non-democrats.

  • Ted May 8, 2020, 4:06 pm

    It WILL fail as a lawsuit because even with the now BANNED “bump stock” , The weapon STILL DOES NOT “FUNCTION” AS A MACHINE GUN ! With a bump stock, YOU, AS THE SHOOTER, still pull the trigger ONE TIME for every bullet that the rifle fires. In the function of a “machine gun”, you pull the trigger and hold it back, the weapon does something internally to make the weapon fire when the mechanism comes into battery. It is like saying that if you take a stock luxury vehicle and put racing fuel in it, it becomes a race car because the engine RPM goes a little higher.

  • Mark May 8, 2020, 3:16 pm

    From my dead cold hand .

  • C.A. May 8, 2020, 1:48 pm

    A federal judge in Nevada has allowed a lawsuit to move forward that alleges Homosexual Males and Females should be considered illegal because they can be converted to simulate the opposite sex.

  • Reticent Rogue May 8, 2020, 1:10 pm

    It is really a waste of time to argue whether bump stocks or automatic weapons or silencers are legal. What we should be discussing is the un-Constitutional passage of the The National Firearms Act (NFA) 1934 and whether the act is legal. As long as we argue along terms decided and defined by anti-gun activists like these incremental and minor issues, we demure on the more important issue of whether it is legal for government to infringe our rights to any degree at all. We need to work to repeal them all.

    • Patriot 308 May 8, 2020, 1:55 pm

      Your exactly right and the fudds of our community need to stand with us and the full constitution or join the antigun side.They are doing nothing but hurting our rights.

    • Jay May 9, 2020, 1:02 am

      Technically you are right but fighting that would be a glorious (for the liberals) waste of time and resources (ours!) As long as that has stood and survived the number of challenges that it has, you/we might just as well consider it inviolate. There’s simply no way that anybody with the power to act upon it will even consider tackling the NFA 1934. It very nearly the same for GCA 1968.

      One thing we might consider addressing is the issue of judges taking actions against issues based on their personal bias based solely upon political agendas, especially when they haven’t the slightest technical understanding of the items they are attacking.
      There likely is one technical aspect of this motion which has been very thoroughly explained to them. That being they can expect a lot of support in any action against “ugly” guns and that, that can be translated, after the fact, against virtually every semi-auto weapon currently in legal private possession.
      THAT is the real threat in this move.

    • Phil May 9, 2020, 6:03 am

      VERY GOOD POINT!!!

  • Dave May 8, 2020, 12:48 pm

    This was inevitable. Trump had his lawyers engage ATF to initiate a rule change to outlaw the sale and manufacture of bump stocks. Note that during the Vegas shooting, bump stocks were still very much legal. The premise of the suit isn’t whether or not bump stocks are legal or not, that is settled at this point due to the rule change. The suit alleges that AR-15 rifles are easily converted to simulate full auto fire. The rule change which allowed the banning of bump stock inertial technology also removed the very definition which defines semi-auto fire control function with full auto function. This was necessary to re-define bump stocks as machine guns since the Obama administration attempted to do this (twice) and was unable. In essence, Trump made a rule change allowing the ban to proceed by redefining what was a machine gun. This, and only this is what opened the door to interpretation by anti-gun judges and gun control organizations to attempt to redefine semi-auto firearms as machine guns due to their operation and ease of simulation of full auto fire.

    Now you can establish your own motives by creating Orange Man Good, Liberal Judge and Gun Grabbers Bad scenarios until Hell freezes over if you wish. You can re-walk the worn path that this violates the 2nd Amendment and is a Constitutional outrage, but the truth is this: (1) Trump changed the wording of 27 CFR to strike the wording “single pull” and insert the term “single function” along with associated definitions of any device which allows a semi-auto firearm to function as a machine gun. This allowed semi-auto firearms and the AR-15 specifically to be scrutinized for addition to the NFA due to its obvious ability to easily be made to fire like a machine gun. (2) The NRA was nowhere to be found due to their love of Trump. (3) Get ready for a lot more of the same under the next Democrat administration. The ground work has already been laid and no democrat will reverse an executive order which furthers gun control.

    • deanbob May 8, 2020, 2:03 pm

      Don’t be surprised. Judge Andrew Gordon is an Obama (appointed) judge.

    • Ted May 8, 2020, 4:11 pm

      The lawsuit does not saying “SIMULATE” , they are saying that it MAKES an AR15 FULLY AUTOMATIC. This is a bold face lie. And anyone that has first hand knowledge of how real full auto and Bump stocks work should have no problem in destroying this argument.

      • Dave May 9, 2020, 3:02 pm

        “§ 202.253. The ATF has defined “designed to shoot” to include “those weapons which have not
        previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic
        fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts.” ATF Ruling 82-2.”

        The lawsuit includes the definition held by the ATF with respect to the definition of a machine gun. You can nit pick between “simulate” and “which facilitate”, but I believe the implication is the same.

  • Eddie May 8, 2020, 12:47 pm

    Hey Jordan Michaels (the author of this article), Yes we know it was a massacre but how about instead of using that word try using “shooting”. Massacre is something a CNN or MSNBC reporter use to give it a slant. Just sayin’.

    • Shan May 8, 2020, 7:18 pm

      Shooting is a sport or a recreational activity

    • Nick May 11, 2020, 2:49 am

      “Shooting” is something that is used to give it a slant. The implication is that what matters is the implement used, rather than the actual crime committed. Referring to “mass shootings” rather than “mass murder” allows the artificial disqualification from consideration of mass killings involving other implements (bombs, planes, vehicles, etc), thereby allowing the propagation of a false narrative.

      You have it exactly backwards. Referring to them as shootings, although technically valid, is actually the false narrative we don’t want to see.

  • Scott Du Pont May 8, 2020, 12:46 pm

    Well I hope a real investigation comes out because I watched the video over 500 times. The first weapon fired was an M240 because of the perfect rythm of fire at full auto. Yet they said they didn’t find one. An M60 to an AK-14 to an M16 all have a different sound and speed rate. Bump stocks are choppy and in accurate as hell.

    • Donald Stratman May 8, 2020, 2:37 pm

      Scott, I agree. I carried a 240 bravo and I know what they sound like. You can hear the 240 barking in the vid

    • Ted May 8, 2020, 4:12 pm

      whats an AK-14 ?

    • Phil May 9, 2020, 6:09 am

      I agree about a pure auto weapon being used. All the facts STILL have not been released in that one. A perfect false flag to put in place a semi auto ban, imho. That episode has too many loose ends.

  • Dit May 8, 2020, 12:46 pm

    Funny how they say that the gun manufacturer should have known someone could do this but there is no liability for the state of Nevada who should have know this guys fragile mental state and NOT GIVEN HIM A GUN PERMIT.

    Also at the risk of being gruesome, how many bullets hit their kid? if it was a dozen, I could see the complaint against machine guns but if it was one bullet, then this is horse SH–. it has nothing to do with the weapon but the wielder of the weapon.

    Reverse the findings and go after the sheriff that authorized his gun permit, go after the legislature that wrote the laws. Oh, there is no money in that? They have laws written so you can’t sue the government? Well then go for the deep pockets of American manufacturers. Right?

    • Deadmeat99 May 8, 2020, 6:48 pm

      What is this “gun permit” you speak of?

  • Winston May 8, 2020, 12:20 pm

    These ‘judges’ are why the US will further collapse into lawlessness. The ‘Greatest Generation’ Post-WWII Liberal Order put into existence the ‘parallel Constitution’ that ignores the Bill of Rights.

    • Jrp May 8, 2020, 1:00 pm

      I think we need to turn the tables on these idiots before a lot of blood is shed in the upcoming civil war they are pushing for. We need to research the biggest anti gun liberals that own or run businesses that sell products that they should of known could be repurposed for killing people. Hammers, scissors, knives, baseball bats, cars “All VW’s” which were made for Hitler, aircraft “ also first used for war, etc… Pretty much anything that kills humans that has been “Repurposed” according to them. I really don’t think they want to open this can of worms.

  • Reticent Rogue May 8, 2020, 11:59 am

    There needs to be a mechanism put in place to remove federal judges. If local, summary judges are elected then federal judges should be removed by referendum. The recall referendum should be called by Senators and Representatives elected to federal office by the people of the state; and the people who elected them should participate in the vote. The problem is that they are appointed for life, the preponderance of them by liberal Democrats who have dominated government for 125 years. The people whose district they serve should have the last word–not Washington Democrats.

  • D Bag May 8, 2020, 11:48 am

    Why are we still not going to action? I personally am waiting for someone else to kick this thing off. We keep complaining about what they do but not do anything about it, I am guilty as well. We all know whats going to happen, how many laws do we put up with till we respond? They have brain washed to the point where we are accepting whats happening.

    • shawn j weldon May 8, 2020, 2:03 pm

      The thing is we are all guilty of sitting back and posting comments like this how we are pissed. And with the coronavirus and the sheriffs in texas bringing mraps to arrest Americans for opening their buisness to survive It’s ramping up fast.The problem is this can’t be one person setting it off but a organized plan is needed for success.

  • Jeffrey Sun May 8, 2020, 11:27 am

    Unbelievable! If you go one step further about vehicles and alcohol, then bigger suits and bans are waiting to happen.
    Modified auto kills a pedestrian, ban autos.
    Alcohol caused drunk drivers, ban alcohol.
    etc, etc.

  • John May 8, 2020, 10:54 am

    It wasn’t Bump Stocks that did this ,it was full auto! Just another Conspiracy

    • Ted May 8, 2020, 4:15 pm

      It was neither, it was a defective person that did it !

  • Don Richardson May 8, 2020, 10:46 am

    And that judge could ‘simulate’ a genius if a brain was installed. Simply anti-freedom, anti-gun, anti-American leftists at work. Remember Patrick Henry. If we don’t stand up for our rights we soon won’t have any. The U.S. education system is controlled by leftists from the federal Dept. of Education to university administrations to professors to kindergarten teachers. Our ‘education’ system is about 34th internationally because they now spend more time teaching political correctness and socialism than they do teaching actual useful knowledge like history, math, logic, science, economics, etc. Thus the kids are anti-American unless their parents rebut the crap the kids were taught in school. If we don’t fix the schools the freedoms we have now will soon be gone. The next generation will throw them away and when they are gone it will be extremely difficult to recover.

  • Nicholas May 8, 2020, 10:31 am

    We have a major problem, which is beyond the scope of my understanding because what I see now is a “pro-gun” community willing to shoot itself in the foot.
    The U.S. Constitution commands that there be Militia, defined in statute, to perform the duties prescribed at Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16, and Article II, § 2, Cl. 1.
    Militia as the Founders knew and understood was “the whole people”, and the Constitution commanded that the segment of “the whole people”, able-bodied men 18 – 45, be organized, armed, and disciplined. The 2nd amendment warned public officials that they must adhere to these commands so that the People must be armed to perform the stated functions. One of those functions is to “repel Invasions”. How would we perform such a duty if we were unable to posses and train with “weapons of war”?
    A note on the Dick Act because I know someone will point it out. Congress is barred from unorganizing, disarming, or leaving Militia untrained. It is also barred from changing the definition of Militia. What congress did do, was allow the States to “keep Troops *** of War” under Article I, § 10, Cl. 3 because the States, and by that I mean We the People, failed to maintain our Militia.
    It was hoped by the Framers of the Constitution that “the whole people” would always remain armed, and that would prevent public officials from infringing on any right. As should be obvious, the American people, pro-2nd or not, want nothing to do with the duty required to protect our freedom.

    • Phil May 9, 2020, 6:14 am

      Thank you Sir for pointing those out!

  • Clint W. May 8, 2020, 9:43 am

    Somebody ‘splain it to me…the ‘infringed’ in the 2A is such a majestic word, it says, no laws even on the fringes of gun control shall be created. So how is it we have over 10,000 on the books?

    The other thing, every other Bill of Rights subject, when violated, is subject to high publicity discussion and lawsuits. Why is it, that when someone is injured or killed by an assailant, in a community that has highly restrictive laws or bans in place for gun ownership, that if the victim survives, if not, a family member, a lawsuit is not created for violation of the victims Constitutional Rights?

    • c May 8, 2020, 9:45 am

      In my last sentence, meant to include after ‘Rights’, ” his right to defend himself and protect his life?”

    • Nicholas May 8, 2020, 10:36 am

      Infringed means nothing at all unless you are willing to perform your duty “to execute the Laws of the Union” as the Constitution commands.
      There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that is sacred without We the People willing to enforce it. It should be obvious, as I wrote above “As should be obvious, the American people, pro-2nd or not, want nothing to do with the duty required to protect our freedom.”

  • Victor Gore Chamoun May 8, 2020, 9:26 am

    Another piece of Shitt liberal lunatic judge will have this thrown out, No matter what they say an AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle and not an assault weapon, dumbass!

    • Nathan May 8, 2020, 1:54 pm

      I’m confused. Not hard to do, though. Is he a piece of shit for being a liberal or for potentially throwing this case out? Isn’t that what we’d want a judge to do? Wouldn’t that deserve a small pat on the back? I realize this is all hypothetical, just curious how this works in your mind.

      • Ted May 8, 2020, 4:58 pm

        He is ALLOWING the case to move forward. It should have been thrown out, but wasnt. On face value, it has NO MERIT ! Most important is the fact that the manufacturers did NOT make weapons that were converted to fully auto at all, since a bump stock didnt MAKE ANYTHING FULL AUTO. Also, the law was put in place to stop lawsuits because an individual used a firearm unlawfully.

  • Matt May 8, 2020, 9:17 am

    Here’s the cool thing about dumb laws/lawmakers. IF we, the people, actually acted like we, the people, then we wouldn’t give a rats ass about what ridiculous gestures come out their pie hole in the first place. Guns would remain free. We would remain free.

  • James May 8, 2020, 8:38 am

    …” We’re optimistic that the Supreme Court is not going to rule that the legislature intended to give immunity to companies that intentionally violate the law,” …>>>. EXCEPT ,the “gun makers” they list aren’t violating laws. Any gun owner that converts a semi to full-auto ,IS . AND bump stocks are now illegal. So…….suck it !

  • Dan May 8, 2020, 8:35 am

    A bump stock does not turn a semi-auto into a full-auto. The trigger still has to reset. Then pressed again by your finger or by a bump stock. An assault rifle you just press your finger against the trigger and hold it. They’re trying to changed the definition of full-auto. Next the gun haters will go after semi-auto handguns. We’ll back to using revolvers. Then they’ll outlaw any sort of speed loader. This will just benefit the criminals bcuz they aren’t law abiding citizens.

    • Thomas Dickinson May 8, 2020, 10:58 am

      You are precisely correct. They don’t care about the details. The only thing they care about is making sure that the general population is controllable. If we have guns and can defend ourselves, that is a problem to them. They will chip away at our rights until we have none unless we stand our ground. First they say a semi-auto is the same as a machine gun. Then they’ll say that anything that shoots every time you pull the trigger is like a machine gun and revolvers will be gone. Then if it goes bang it is too dangerous. They think your only method of self-defense should be to call 911. And if you lived in my neighborhood you’d know that calling 911 has the same effect as talking to the fire hydrant. Remember Patrick Henry. Stand up for your rights or lose them.

  • Tommy wright May 8, 2020, 8:35 am

    This DUMBASS judge should be removed from ever being able to preside over a trial of any kind. He has already decided who should be blamed. Sad.

  • David Welsh May 8, 2020, 8:31 am

    Unscrupulous people and attorneys would rather have 50 pieces of silver than our precious Republic.

  • Jordan Sutich May 8, 2020, 8:25 am

    Bump stocks are illegal just like machine guns for most of us to own. Is this judge out of his mind?

    • FAL Phil May 8, 2020, 9:15 am

      With any kind of competence in the defendant’s legal team, this suit will fail and precedence will be set. This is not a bad thing. IANAL, but
      – As noted, bump stocks have been banned
      – Bump firing can be performed with merely a human finger
      – Almost all repeaters can be made into machine guns (witness Pedersen devices)
      – Machine guns have a legal definition in US Code which clearly defies the assertions in the suit

      So, when the suit fails, the bar will be higher for further court action in this direction.

  • Jeff Chapman May 8, 2020, 8:23 am

    “AR-15s should be considered machine guns because they can be converted to simulate fully automatic fire using bump stocks”.

    As of March 26, 2019, bump stocks are illegal for almost all US civilians, so the point is moot.

  • Dareshiranu May 8, 2020, 8:03 am

    So if, for instance he’d manage to develop a small catapult to launch Molotov Cocktails or other easily assembled incendiary devices to commit his assault exactly whom would they seek to blame?

    Oil companies? Glass bottle manufacturers? Chemical companies?

    It isn’t as if a determined crazy person can’t come up with alternatives.

    • Calvin Johnson May 8, 2020, 11:02 am

      Shhhhhhhhhh. Next thing you know they will outlaw gasoline and you’ll have to ride a bicycle to work. Too bad if you live 30 miles from the office.

  • Robert May 8, 2020, 8:02 am

    Just to be clear here the 23000+ laws on the books for guns are in sense all illegal to start with. As under the 2nd Amendment the words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” were indeed infringed as soon as the so called laws were added to the books. As to a lawsuit against the manufacturers that will be dropped as any one in the lawyer section can claim that as when it was built it did not come with a bump stock or sector switch to make it fire more then one round at a time. Now they could go after the bump stock makers as their intent was to make a fire arm fire faster then designed. Then again people should go after the shooters estate as he took two items and redesigned the firearm but then again need to go after the 5-6 people that under witness accounts where in black tactical gear with firearms that showed up before the shooting and were not cops. As to ANY MASS SHOOTINGS YOU GO AFTER THE SHOOTERS ESTATE, not the tool that the clown used as then you could sue just about every manufacturer for auto, tools and what ever else people use to kill people with. You change an ARs status to sub machine gun then the people have the right to convert it to what a sub machine gun really is.

  • Neal R. Miller May 8, 2020, 7:57 am

    If bump stocks have been banned? then how can they make an AR a Machine Gun?
    MOLON LAVE.

  • Tim Gorman May 8, 2020, 7:53 am

    Under this reasoning a potato gun could be converted to a rifle merely by loading it with a hard projectile. Anyone selling a potato gun woiuld therefore be liable for anyone killed, either purposefully or accidentally, by use of the potato gun.

    Just how far are the idiot liberal judges going to take this farce?

    • David Earnst May 8, 2020, 11:08 am

      They will take it to whatever extent they can. Where I live a potato gun is considered a weapon the same as my deer rifle is. The local (city) regulations are crazy. Anything which shoots a projectile is considered a firearm. That includes a bow and arrow or a slingshot. And I’m planning to move to somewhere more civilized as soon as I can afford it.

  • Dave from Las Vegas May 8, 2020, 7:36 am

    This is what three years of law school and 30 years of practice taught me about the legal questions raised by this case.

    The issue falls under the theory of “reasonable forseeability”. For example, if an auto manufacturer advertises a vehicle as being suitable for off road use, but installs brakes that are not certified for off road use, then the manufacturer probably would be liable for off road accidents due to brake failure.

    Similarly, if it can be shown that a reasonable person could forsee that a semi-automatic rifle could be converted to fully automatic fire with simple modifications, then the inherent risks associated with such weapons being subject to such modification could result in liability on the part of the original manufacturer of the weapon.

    There is some case law in which a certain rifle (I won’t disclose the maker, but the weapon is known as a favorite of some street gangs) could be converted to automatic fire with a simple kit available over the Internet and a file. The original gun manufacturer, as part of the settlement, made a modification to the extractor and bolt (which cost about $2.00 per gun) that prevented the aftermarket conversion. As I recall, there was some evidence produced, in the form of an internal memo, that said that the conversion would likely result in a significant reduction in gun sales.

    Now give these facts, what do you think?

    • Alej Marcos May 8, 2020, 8:11 am

      “Now give(n) these facts, what do you think?”

      I think lawyers are the commercial scum of America.

      “The comparison by the Agenda for Civil Justice Reform in America of the per capita number of lawyers in the United States (281 per 100,000 population) to Japan (11 per 100,000), shown in the chart accompanying your Aug. 14 article… .”
      https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+lawyers+per+person+in+japan&oq=number+of+lawyers+per+person+in+japan&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.20675j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      Hungry sharks, with not enough food to take the edge off greed.

      • Don Richardson May 8, 2020, 11:10 am

        Amen.

      • Nathan May 8, 2020, 2:02 pm

        But…I like Colin Noir, and he’s a lawyer…

        • Nathan May 8, 2020, 2:03 pm

          Fuck auto-correct!
          COLION NOIR!!!

    • J Baker May 8, 2020, 8:16 am

      However in the case of the off road vehicle, it wouldn’t have to be modified to malfunction. In the case of the weapon, it would have to be intentionally modified to malfunction in a way that would cause harm. If I cut the brake lines on my car and kill someone, should I be held accountable or the car manufacturer?

    • srsquidizen May 8, 2020, 8:30 am

      But a bump stock does NOT provide “fully automatic” fire. It simply assists a shooter in returning his finger to firing position quickly, but a separate and distinct human trigger pull for each shot is still absolutely necessary. So it does not by a long shot, excuse pun, meet the law’s definition of “fully automatic”.

      If a serial killer performs the very simple procedure of grinding a kitchen knife into a dagger-shaped blade that is better at penetrating vital organs of his stabbing victims, is that something the knife manufacturer should have foreseen? Are they liable for murders committed with their “modified” kitchen utensil?

    • Reticent Rogue May 8, 2020, 12:18 pm

      Dave from Las Vegas, your jurisprudential theory of ‘foreseeability’ emerges from what Hawthorne labelled ‘dead men’s laws.’ Today, foreseability is defined by endless anecdotal evidence and vast statistical evidence. In one example, a woman decided to divorce her husband by repeatedly running over him with a Cadillac SUV. The result was foreseeable. In fact, the same thing has happened to a million people–all of which the manufacturers of cars are fully aware; and, yet, car manufacturers go unmolested by the courts for the very simple reason people cannot use them to overthrow a tyrannical government. The foreseeable potential of personally owned firearms was fully answered by the incontestable language of the 2nd Amendment. It has been left in place for 240 years and no amount of leftist ‘foreseeability’ can change that.

  • Bad Penguin May 8, 2020, 7:35 am

    I get the feeling the family just wants to push its liberal agenda and make a fortune doing it.

  • patrick May 8, 2020, 7:30 am

    This is crazy in that the AR-15 was not sold as fully automatic but had to be modified to act as. The fact that it was modified creates a new gray area that nobody could have controlled. But that should not be a reason to outlaw a legally created product with out the modifications. This is just a end run on civil rights by a rouge judge making new laws from their bench.

  • Robert May 8, 2020, 6:43 am

    So what you’re telling me is, that your daughter would still be alive, had he perpetrated this in semi auto only… The way the law works is that you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the pseudo automatic fire that killed her, and that if he used straight up semi, that she would be alive today. PLEASE show me how you’re going to go about proving that…

    • George May 8, 2020, 7:22 am

      The US Army states an assault weapon has a selective fire… Does a AR15 have a Selective fire? End of Law Suit ..
      Judges today are bought & sold as Globalist puppets.

      • Alej Marcos May 8, 2020, 8:14 am

        “Judges today are bought & sold as Globalist puppets.”

        Why wouldn’t they feel comfortable being bought and sold ?

        They were lawyers first.

  • JD May 8, 2020, 5:38 am

    Judge: born in San Francisco, law degree from Harvard, appointed by Obama. Enough said.

  • JoebobOhio May 8, 2020, 4:09 am

    Any modification to a semi auto weapon designed to increase its cyclic rate of fire like bump stocks or electric triggers should require special license like that required for full auto weapons.

    • me May 8, 2020, 7:34 am

      I disagree whole-heartily.

    • Trevor Teague May 8, 2020, 7:41 am

      Spoken like a true blue boot licking fudd.

    • Alej Marcos May 8, 2020, 8:18 am

      “… should require special license like that required for full auto weapons.”

      What is it about the words, “…shall not be infringed” that you can’t grasp ?

      “Fringe” means the very tiniest edge, an infinitisimal perimeter’ i.e., do not even touch.

    • David Welsh May 8, 2020, 8:29 am

      You’re in the wrong country.

    • Deadmeat99 May 8, 2020, 6:50 pm

      No

    • Phil May 9, 2020, 6:27 am

      Turn in all your sports equipment, kitchen knives, hand tools, shoe laces (and shoes!), any mode of transportation, charcoal, and register your hands. All previous have been used to murder humans.

  • bob onit May 8, 2020, 2:28 am

    Who was the judge ? Pontius Pilate……. You buy a pick up truck ,load with extra fuel cans add a fuse light it boom Ford ,GM etc. Should have known it could be a bomb …..blow me judge

    • Bill May 8, 2020, 7:45 am

      Ash, it remember the rule change that the aft made to all this at Trumps behest? Remember that. Strategy sir, strategy. Gun owners friend he is not, yeah he may love America but like everyone else who has not grown up with guns, had guns be a part of their lives, their fathers life, their grandfathers life, he is not like us, will never be like us.
      Is it not a little strange that bumpstocks was the only issue they raised hell about after that LV shooting? After that, radio silence. No, they ALL got what they wanted. Somebody should look into these people and find out more about them and their lawyer.

      • Janet Tomkins May 8, 2020, 11:17 am

        Yes. I’ve noticed that frequently. People get all upset that someone was killed with a gun. The fact that someone was killed is largely ignored. It is the gun that is the problem, not the fact that someone lost their life. It reminds me of the Planned Parenthood discussion. Somehow they are providers of “women’s healthcare” by killing babies. Logic is not part of the left’s arguments.

  • Carl Williams May 8, 2020, 1:33 am

    Hmm . . . By this logic, I should be able to sue an auto manufacturer because it should have foreseen that a drunk could drive one of its trucks and hit my vehicle (with ME in it), or that a religious or racist fanatic could drive a vehicle onto a crowded sidewalk and kill people. Perhaps I could sue for reimbursement for a speeding ticket or lost wages due to a revoked license because said manufacturer should have foreseen that its speedometer, which goes up to 120 mph, would encourage me to drive faster than permitted by law. Maybe I could sue Stanley because it should have foreseen that I could break my thumb with the hammer it made. I feel nothing but sympathy for this family, but it’s not rational to hold the manufacturers responsible for the crazed actions of one individual. And I hate to be crass, but that individual had squandered his fortune on the proverbial “wine, women, and song” — and high-roller gambling. There’s nothing to be gained from suing his estate, but how much are these gun makers worth? How much is just the PUBLICITY from a lawsuit like this worth to anti-2A groups or individuals? Hmm . . . .

  • Ken May 7, 2020, 11:54 pm

    This is why , Shakespeare said kill all the lawyers first! He was right . And most politicians are lawyers too.

    • Lloyd A Smith May 8, 2020, 8:22 am

      Amen!

  • Matt Randall May 7, 2020, 8:53 pm

    Sooo, A guy Takes his 250 horsepower Chevy Malibu and modified the engine up to 650 horsepower, then is involved in an accident. Does the family then have the right to sue GM, because GM should have foreseen people can modify their cars engine! I don’t think so.

  • Daniel Clayburn May 7, 2020, 6:28 pm

    End result, just about any non-bolt action firearm, with modifications can be made into a machine gun. You can carry this further and you can alter just about anything to become a weapon, and in a lot of cases illegal ones. Question is, where does out it stop, we are seeing where it can start.

    • Phil May 9, 2020, 6:33 am

      On the M1903, a bolt action rifle, at the end of WWI, a Peterson device was invented enabling that bolt action to be converted to full auto fire.

  • Kenneth Hoffman May 7, 2020, 5:36 pm

    The rifle with the bumpstock was a semi-automatic before the aftermarket “accessory” was added and it will be a semi-automatic after the bumpstock is removed. The manufacturer made it semi-automatic and it does not fit the legal definition of a machine gun no matter what is attached to it.

    • me May 8, 2020, 7:39 am

      The rifle was a semi-auto before the bumpstock was added, when it was added and after it was taken off. Even with a bumpstock on it requires a pull of the trigger each time. The bumpstock just aided that. Machines guns/full auto just need to have the trigger pressed to the rear and held there to fire multiple rounds. You know this, right?

    • Lloyd A Smith May 8, 2020, 8:28 am

      The rifle was a semi-auto while the bump stock was attached also. We were sold down the river by the NRA and Trump on that one. No matter how one tries, the rifle will only fire one round with one trigger pull. There are some amazingly fast people in the shooting community. Will they also be made illegal?

  • Wild Bill May 7, 2020, 3:29 pm

    It’s always best to look for the root of the problem. The shooter that this case refers to, upon examination of the suites that he supposedly fired from by L.V. Metro SWAT officers first on the scene, showed the windows completely intact. Hence, no rounds were fired from these rooms onto the concert venue. Therefore, none of the weapons fitted with bumpstocks there could have caused the death of the young woman in question!
    Also, most if not all the rounds were fired from a belt fed machinegun from a helicopter hovering just to the west of the hotel Mandalay Bay.

    • Dave from Las Vegas May 8, 2020, 7:10 am

      Wild Bill,

      You are factually incorrect. I was on scene just after the shooting happened picking up my wife at the airport, which is about 100 yds from the shooting. I can tell you that the windows at the Mandalay Bay Hotel were broken and the shooter fired from a high floor in that building. You just don’t know what you are talking about.

      • Reticent Rogue May 8, 2020, 12:58 pm

        OK, Dave, we hear you…bottom line…no matter how many people die at the hands of criminals in this country where men are free to own guns, you and your ilk do not get to tell me what I can or cannot own. Not now. Not ever. The fact is that countries that ban guns kill more people than all the mass shooters since the invention of the firearm. Every law since the 1934 Firearms Act passed to regulate firearms violates the spirit if not the law of the 2nd Amendment. That issue comes closer to a head every time there is a knee-jerk law passed and it seems a final outcome is coming soon. Sorry to say that people like you will have more in common with King George than George Washington.

  • Dave from San Antonio May 7, 2020, 1:51 pm

    Interesting. If this is allowed, then most semiautomatic firearms might soon fall prey to this line of ‘BS’. With a little know-how or the services of a gunsmith, who wouldn’t mind spending some serious prison time, many semi-autos can be converted to automatic or close to it. No firearm manufacturer should be penalized. They did ‘not’ sell a fully automatic firearm nor did the firearms dealer. The ‘conversion’ to full auto is the sole responsibility of the owner…just as driving drunk and killing someone is the sole responsibility of the driver.

  • Chris M. May 7, 2020, 1:08 pm

    Consider that US law is based on case law. Consider that by allowing this to go forward and be ruled on it will be easy to prove that AR-15’s are semi-automatic rifles, manufactures are not liable for consumer modifications and legally bump stocks are not full Auto. This type of judgement would create precedent and allow a case to be brought forward that AR-15’s are not assault weapons because by definition an assault weapon is select-fire. A case could be also brought forward challenging defining bump stocks as a full-auto modification. If you think about how law is established in this country you should be happy the judge allowed this to move forward.

    • Lloyd A Smith May 8, 2020, 8:33 am

      Problem is, pro-gun is always playing defense. No one brings a suit to support the industry.

      • Chris Meadows May 11, 2020, 3:13 pm

        I agree and that is unfortunate. I really think members of organizations like the NRA, Gun Owners of America, ect. would get much better results if more of the member dues went to support affirmative legal action for gun owners. I feel like we would get much better long term results but eventually the NRA would not be able to play “chicken little” as often and they would end up with revenue stream reductions.

  • Aleric May 7, 2020, 12:11 pm

    Now turn this back on the Judge, if he wants to label ARs machine guns then that means the NFA is unconstitutional and they should be able to be bought just like the current ARs are without a FFL and tax stamp. This would send it to SCOTUS and it would be struck down there.

  • seen-it-all May 7, 2020, 11:49 am

    Just another ambulance chaser looking for a payday and the judge is driving the ambulance.

  • Robert Banks May 7, 2020, 11:16 am

    Since when did apples and oranges become the same thing.

    • Michael C. May 8, 2020, 6:40 am

      Well, they are both round. Sort of…

  • Randall Guinn May 7, 2020, 11:09 am

    This one will get bounced on the next review. All semi-auto guns can be full automatic so does this mean all semi-automatic weapons are machine guns? One biased judge makes a decision like this and only gets the family hopes up… no merit.

  • Brad May 7, 2020, 9:28 am

    I’m sorry for their loss, but the family is going to end up losing even more money and making their lawyer even richer after their case is ruled against.

    • tracker1 May 7, 2020, 1:46 pm

      Chances are some gun grabber organization is funding the lawsuit

  • PB- dave May 7, 2020, 8:53 am

    A pretty broad stroke for a judge to paint…..
    maybe Mattel should be sued for making toy guns that can be disguised as real and used for hold-ups ?
    maybe Ford should be held responsible for making vehicles that can be used for get-aways ?
    maybe USC chemistry department too, for handing out knowledge that could be used for making weapons?

    At some point we need to hold criminals accountable, instead of who has the biggest wallet.

  • Greg Willingham May 7, 2020, 8:52 am

    Apparently not all judges are smart. They like act educated and like they know a lot, but apparently this one missed common sense education day. So I will enlighten you, idiot judge.

    THE “AR” IN AR-15 DOES NOT STAND FOR ASSAULT RIFLE
    It is easy to understand how this mistake is made: Many people (incorrectly) refer to an AR-15 as an “Assault Rifle” and the term AR-15 includes the letters “AR.”

    However, the “AR” in AR-15 does NOT stand for “Assault Rifle”. . . those letters are for “Armalite Rifle.”

    This is because the company Armalite is the inventor and original manufacturer of the rifle.

    First, they came out with the AR-10 which is a rifle similar in function to the AR-15 but it is bigger, heavier, and fires a larger projectile. A smaller and lighter rifle was desired to they continued to tweak the design until they cam up with the AR-15.  Each of their rifles was referred to as Armalite Rifle – [number].

    From Armalite [3]:

    “The AR-1 was one of the first rifles produced at Armalite’s location in Hollywood, CA, and paved the way to the development of the AR-10. All rifles were designated AR, short for Armalite Rifle. Shortly thereafter, Armalite submitted the AR-5, .22 Hornet Survival Rifle to the U.S. Air Force as a replacement for their then-standard survival rifle.”

    “BULLET” IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH CARTRIDGE NOR AMMUNITION

    Ammunition refers to the loaded combination of a bullet, cartridge case, gun powder, and primer.

    Each of the components of ammunition are loaded together into one cartridge. This is why ammunition (or ammo for short) is sometimes referred to as a “cartridge of ammunition” or simply a “cartridge.” Also, the term “round” or “round of ammunition” is also sometimes used.

    Note that only ONE of the components of a complete cartridge of ammunition is the bullet.

    The firing pin of a firearm strikes the primer which, acting as a percussion cap, ignites the gun powder. The gun powder burns rapidly and significantly increases pressure within the cartridge case until the bullet is propelled down the firearm’s barrel (much like a cork our of a champagne bottle).

    The bullet is what flies through the air from the firearm to the target.

    The gun powder is burned and consumed upon firing (resulting in some smoke, often a muzzle-flash, and the resulting gun shot noise).

    The cartridge case and the primer extracted from the chamber and ejected from the firearm.

    PLEASE tell your graphics department: only the bullet (the tip) flies through the air. The bulk of the cartridge (the case) does NOT.

    To complicate things slightly, under federal law, each component of a cartridge of ammunition is considered to be “ammunition.” Therefore, legally a lone bullet, or even an empty cartridge case for that matter, are each independently considered ammunition under federal law and may not be possessed by prohibited persons. So, a bullet, as a component of a loaded cartridge of ammunition, can be “ammunition” under federal law but ammunition is not necessarily a bullet.

    SEMI-AUTO VS FULL-AUTO FIREARMS

    Semi-Automatic and Full-Auto are NOT the same thing!

    When a firearm is semi-automatic, it means that the firearm fires a bullet once for each single pull of the trigger without the need to manually operate the firearm’s action.

    Manually operating the firearms action refers to things like pumping a pump-Action shotgun (the ka-chunk sound comes from sliding the fore-end in between shots to cycle the action) or operating the bolt on a bolt action rifle.

    A semi-automatic firearm uses either the recoil energy of the previous shot or the gas pressure from the previous shot to operate the action.

    “Operating the action” includes extracting the empty casing from the chamber, ejecting the empty casing, cocking the firing mechanism, feeding the next round of ammunition from the magazine, and locking it into the chamber.

    A fully-automatic firearm, on the other hand, continues to fire ammunition for as long as the trigger is held to the rear by the shooter. Fully-auto firearms are sometimes called “machine guns” and are highly regulated. For example, a civilian (non gun dealer or non gov’t/LE) may not possess a fully-auto firearm made after 1986 and for those manufactured before 1986, there are significant taxes, background checks, and approval waiting periods. Learn more about machine gun legality.

    A civilian-grade AR-15 is semi-automatic whereas a military-grade M-16 can be full-automatic.

    SUMMARY: Semi-auto is one bullet for every single trigger pull. Full-auto is continuous fire for one trigger pull.

    Please stop calling “scary looking” rifles “machine guns

  • Richard Haid May 7, 2020, 8:46 am

    So if you don’t like something but you can’t regulate it change the name of it to something you can regulate. So from now on this is no longer a judge, he is a wordsmith and his opinion can be disregarded.

  • Mort May 7, 2020, 8:14 am

    This ignorant Judge is ruling on what MIGHT happen…
    Until any conversion takes place, it is STILL only just another semi-automatic gun…..

    Using his clueless logic, all women must be considered prostitutes because they COULD BE converted into one.

  • James Y. Myers May 7, 2020, 8:08 am

    Isn’t this case somewhat analogous to the suit brought against Boeing by the 9/11 families alleging foreseeability insofar as the 757 aircraft used by the hijackers to strike New York and the Pentagon? Did Boeing have a duty to prevent hijacking its aircraft because it was reasonably foreseeable that hijacked aircraft could be used to kill many thousands of innocent persons?

    Courts found no such duty existed for Boeing and it is extremely likely that this specious use of foreseeability will likewise be turned aside.

  • David in MA May 7, 2020, 8:05 am

    I wonder if this learned judge has ever read the legal description of a machine gun?
    It seems that every day I read something from the “legal minds”, that just doesn’t make sense.

  • Eugene Ross May 7, 2020, 8:04 am

    just goes to show he has no idea what he’s talking about. just another communist trying to take over our country

  • William Clark May 7, 2020, 7:51 am

    Technically a bump stock works on individual Trigger pulls for each shot fired. Still a semi auto.
    Also if you can convert something into a weapon, then this will open all kinds of BS.. Cars, Pressure Cookers, etc.. Where does it end?

  • Diksum May 7, 2020, 7:51 am

    I think Christopher Columbus or his descendants should be defendants in this lawsuit because his discovery of the New World eventually led to the development of the M16/AR15/M4 in the U.S.

    • Daniel Braatz May 7, 2020, 2:41 pm

      Why don’t we sue the ship yards that made the Nina the Pinta the Santa Maria? Or maybe the lumberjacks who cut down the trees that were used to make the lumber that the yards bought- -hey. who planted the seeds to grow those trees?..

  • Steve May 7, 2020, 7:40 am

    What law did the firearm companies violate? This is more BS from people trying to extract money. Yes, I am sorry for the loss of their daughter, but it is not the AR15. the manufacturers or the dealers that are the culprits. Bump stocks were deemed illegal after the fact, but they still are not “automatic firearms” by the letter of the law. At the time the sick killer assembled the bump stocks onto his firearms used Las Vegas they were not illegal to possess, so I do not see where the plaintiff has a case. I am sure they are hoping some of the big fish will just offer a payoff and they will settle out of court. I hope the defendants stick together and see it through to the end!

    • Arch May 8, 2020, 5:13 am

      I ahve yet to see any photographs fo the Vegas shoort’s rifles fitted with a Bump Stock. And people still do not understand that the Bump Fire technique can be performed WITHOUT a bump stock or similar device.

  • James Macklin May 7, 2020, 7:33 am

    A one armed shooter cannot make use of a bump stock since it is pushing the firearm forward that fires the Second shot.
    Daniel Defence and Remington did not make or sell bump stocks.
    ATF had ruled the bump stock wasn’t a machine gun and then reversed for political reasons.
    One of the very first machine gun was a modified
    1873 Winchester ” cowboy ” lever action.

  • CyborgHunter May 7, 2020, 7:16 am

    When was it established that the Nevada mass murderer actually used a bumpstock to kill his victims?
    Yes, we’ve all seen the photos of the rifles with bumpstocks, but he had rifles without bumpstocks also.
    Where is the proof that the rifles with the bumpstocks were used to kill this young woman, or anyone else?

    • Doug M. May 7, 2020, 11:07 am

      STOP!!!…. Your use of commons sense and pointing out reasonable questions will NOT be accepted!!!!……

  • Anthony Romano May 7, 2020, 7:08 am

    All this is doing is making gun owners like myself who don’t own an AR or AK go out and buy one! I’m looking at two right now at my local gun shop. The Connecticut SC is a bunch of antigun loonies!!

  • CHARLES BRUMBAUGH May 7, 2020, 7:06 am

    the only company that a lawsuit should be allowed to go forward against, should be the bumpstop manufacturer!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF any at all

    • Tom B May 7, 2020, 9:22 am

      Yes but those manufacturers don’t have lots of money so the damn lawyers cannot get a big pay day from them. They should sue the hotel that let the crazy guy bring in his arsenal and use the room as a sniper stand.

      • Arch May 8, 2020, 5:18 am

        EXACTLY! By using their logic, the hotel should have foreseen that their rooms facing the concert area COULD have been used by a gun-man to committ a crime!!!! Also, sue the manufacturer of the elevator system for the same reason….the maker of the glass used in the window of the room and the maker of the door and door lock…..Hel….why not the producer of the raw materials used in making the guns and the stocks? Where will it end?

    • Matt May 7, 2020, 1:47 pm

      I would have to say no company at all. You can modify a car to go faster. The manufacturer is not held liable in a speed related fatality, neither should the manufacturer of the turbo or blower or nitrous, etc.

      Should the scope manufacturer be held liable as well? He would have killed far less people had he not had any sighting system.

    • Jay May 9, 2020, 1:31 am

      Matt has it exactly right! As long as a manufacturer makes something that works just as designed and that such article is safe IF USED CORRECTLY and in a LEGAL MANNER, then that manufacturer has no legal responsibility for any misuse of their item.
      I mean, how many people have had their heads bashed in with tire irons, baseball bats, crowbars, axe and hammer handles… the list is endless. Are we then to blame the manufacturers or designers of those everyday articles? Heck no!
      For that manner, the automobile has killed and maimed more people than any firearm (excepting military usage). Most especially the “muscle car” ie; the basic two door sports car. So do we sue Ford, Chevrolet &tc for their cars? One might make an argument for that considering such cars are designed specifically beyond legal limits, UNLIKE the firearms being challenged.
      Awe heck, More than ’nuff said.

  • Joseph Buxton Jr May 7, 2020, 6:42 am

    This is complete horse crap!!!! You cant just say somethings something just cause you want to. Ridiculous!!!!!

  • Brandon May 7, 2020, 6:29 am

    If one can change definitions to mean whatever one wishes, one can actually carry out whatever one wishes.

  • SuperG May 6, 2020, 9:51 am

    Sad to see Nevada being infected by the insane thinking of California.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend