Home»News/Politics»Frivolous Lawsuits Filed Against Bump Stock Manufacturers After Vegas Shooting

Frivolous Lawsuits Filed Against Bump Stock Manufacturers After Vegas Shooting

0
Shares
Pinterest Google+

If you’ve seen the movie “Runaway Jury” with John Cusack, Rachel Weisz, and Gene Hackman, then you are familiar with the story of how people attempt to emotionally manipulate a jury to convict gun manufacturers of being guilty of a crime in which an individual murders students at a high school.

Well, it appears some people are taking a que from that film and attempting to sue manufacturers and distributors of bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting.

In fact, a Chicago-based law firm on behalf of 14 victims filed a lawsuit on Wednesday in Clark County District Court in which they are attempting to hold both manufacturers and distributors of the popular product liable.

The suit names MGM Resorts who owns Mandalay Bay and promoter Live Nation, who hosted the concert venue.

How exactly does one go about holding someone liable who sells a perfectly legally protected product which didn’t actually hurt anyone?  The bump stocks didn’t take aim and fire a gun on their own, did they?

I don’t recall that in the official story or any theory that’s been put out there.

How is the concert venue liable?  One might understand how Paddock being well known and being holed up in the hotel and the things that were done to the room and outside it, but the owners of the concert venue?

“Bump stocks are supposed to be made and sold to people who either have handicaps or disabilities and being unable to be able to shoot a gun as normal people would be able to, one without a handicap or disability,” said attorney Antonio Romanucci. “Stephen Paddock used his bump stock to turn his gun from a semi-automatic weapon where each finger pull would result in the discharge of a bullet, whereas one finger pull would discharge hundreds of rounds over a period of minutes. So, this bump stock was used in a manner in which it was not intended to be used.”

Romanucci is just not being honest here.  Anyone who knows anything about these devices knows they were constructed for one purpose and that is to simulate automatic firing of a semi-automatic rifle.

Then, of course, the Brady Center, who is also representing three other victims, filed a lawsuit in October against bump stock maker Slide Fire Solutions, a Texas-based company that claims to be the “sole patent holder of bump fire technology.”

Slide Fire Solutions said that they were halted due to lawsuits and cries from gun grabbing politicians to ban their product, but have gotten back up and running to meet the increased demand for their product.

Guns.com reports:

The Texas-based manufacturer of a contentious aftermarket accessory that uses recoil impulse to help mimic full-auto fire has announced they are again accepting orders.

Flooded by demand in the aftermath of federalstate and local calls for bans on the devices after the Las Vegas shooting in which they were utilized, Slide Fire last month placed a temporary hold on taking new orders in order to accommodate their backorder. Now, they have announced that effective Wednesday they will resume limited sales.

“However, we have not yet reached adequate inventory levels to offer sales of all products,” clarified the company in a release, noting they will initially be offering their SSAR-15 OGR stocks in both right and left-hand models and SSAR-15 SBS models in right-hand only.

Slide Fire stresses that, while all items are new production and tested at their facility, they may not ship in retail packaging.

If you ask me, these are frivolous lawsuits.  Not that they needed it under our Constitution, but they were approved in 2010 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives under the Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah administration.

In each of these cases, no crime was actually committed by the manufacturers, distributors, the concert venue nor the hotel, although perhaps a case might be made for negligence on the part of Mandalay Bay.

It’s like saying the brick manufacturer can be sued because a criminal used a bring to break a window, something it was never intended to do, in order to access a building and steal something and in the process killed someone.

In any case, the judge reviewing the lawsuit should toss it out as being without any merit.

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Previous post

Democrat SC Mayor Now Pushing to Ban Bump Stocks & Trigger Cranks

Next post

The Right to Life and the Second Amendment