WHY DECISION LIBERAL JUDGE IN CONNECTICUT Is About To Make Could Be HUGE Threat To Our SECOND AMENDMENTObama s goal of making gun control a reality in the United States of America is one step closer, thanks to this radical judge A Connecticut judge ruled Thursday that a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used in the Sandy Hook shootings, and other companies, can move forward.A Connecticut Superior Court judge denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the companies involved in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of the rifle used in the deadly 2012 shootings.Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings on Dec. 14, 2012 to kill 26 people in less than five minutes. The families of the victims, which included 20 children, have sued the maker, distributor and seller of the rifle, arguing that the military-style gun should have never been available for civilians to purchase.Connecticut State Judge Barbara Bellis rejected the gun companies  argument that a 2005 federal law can protect gun businesses from civil lawsuits.Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the rifle, is named in the suit. Also named is Camfour Inc., a distributor of firearms, and the now-defunct Riverview Gun Sales, a dealer in East Windsor, Conn., that sold the rifle to the Lanza s mother in 2010. Via: Washington ExaminerNolan Finley, The Detroit News   The lawsuit, filed by nine victim families, claims Remington is liable for making and selling to the public a rifle unfit for civilian use.The claim plays right into the anti-gun lobby s latest end-around of the Constitution. It follows the strategy laid out in last week s Democratic debate by Hillary Clinton, who wants to open up both gun manufacturers and gun retailers to product liability lawsuits.While Clinton chortles derisively whenever it s pointed out that the threat of such litigation would become an effective ban on gun sales, and ultimately on gun ownership, that is precisely the desired outcome.Clinton s charge that gunmakers enjoy unique protection from liability isn t true. All manufacturers of defect-free, legal goods enjoy a broad shield against damage resulting from the intentional misuse of their products.Still, gun opponents compare firearm manufacturers with automakers, who are routinely sued when their cars and trucks are involved in a fatal accident. But those suits center around product malfunctions or design flaws. If someone gets drunk and plows an automobile into a group of children at a bus stop, the automaker is only liable if something was defective on the vehicle that contributed to the carnage.The weapons used by Lanza were not defective. The were misused. Neither the manufacturer nor the retailer, who is also being sued, sold them to Lanza. The emotionally troubled teen took them without permission from his mother s home. A negligence case could be made against the mother. She should not have allowed her deranged son access to her extensive arsenal; I m all for holding gun owners responsible for properly securing their firearms.Unfortunately, his mother was Lanza s first victim.Judge Barbara Bellis permitted the suit against Remington to proceed based on her gross misunderstanding of firearms.She agreed with the plaintiff s attorneys depiction of the Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle as a military weapon not intended for civilian use.That s just wrong. The difference between the Bushmaster and a common hunting rifle is cosmetic. It looks more lethal, but it operates the same way, firing one bullet with each pull of the trigger. It s not a machine gun; it doesn t fire rounds in bursts.If the military were to arm its soldiers with Bushmasters, it would lose every battle.Lanza used legal weapons that were sold within the strict confines of Connecticut s gun laws, but taken without the owner s permission.If that becomes the flimsy standard for manufacturer and retailer liability, as both this lawsuit and Hillary Clinton hope, it will be the end of gunmaking and sales in this country. And that s just what backers of this strategy want.politics
why decision liberal judge in connecticut is about to make could be huge threat to our second amendmentobama goal making gun control reality united states america one step closer thanks radical judge a connecticut judge ruled thursday lawsuit manufacturer gun used sandy hook shootings companies move connecticut superior court judge denied motion dismiss lawsuit companies involved manufacturing distribution sale rifle used deadly lanza used bushmaster rifle sandy hook elementary school shootings kill people less five minutes the families victims included children sued maker distributor seller rifle arguing gun never available civilians state judge barbara bells rejected gun companies argument federal law protect gun businesses civil arms manufacturer rifle named suit also named amour distributor firearms overview gun sales dealer east windsor sold rifle lanza mother via washington examinernolan finely the detroit news the lawsuit filed nine victim families claims remington liable making selling public rifle unfit civilian claim plays right lobby latest constitution it follows strategy laid last week democratic debate hillary clinton wants open gun manufacturers gun retailers product liability clinton charles decisively whenever pointed threat litigation would become effective ban gun sales ultimately gun ownership precisely desired charge gunmakers enjoy unique protection liability true all manufacturers legal goods enjoy broad shield damage resulting intentional misuse gun opponents compare firearm manufacturers automakers routinely sued cars trucks involved fatal accident but suits center around product malfunction design flaws if someone gets drunk flows automobile group children bus stop automated liable something defective vehicle contributed weapons used lanza defective the misused neither manufacturer retailer also sued sold lanza the emotionally troubled teen took without permission mother home a negligence case could made mother she allowed deranged son access extensive arsenal i holding gun owners responsible properly securing mother lanza first barbara bells permitted suit remington proceed based gross misunderstanding agreed plaintiff attorneys depiction bushmaster rifle military weapon intended civilian wrong the difference bushmaster common hunting rifle cosmetic it looks lethal operates way firing one bullet pull trigger it machine gun fire rounds military arm soldiers bushmasters would lose every used legal weapons sold within strict confines connecticut gun laws taken without owner becomes flimsy standard manufacturer retailer liability lawsuit hillary clinton hope end gunmaking sales country and backers strategy
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: WHY DECISION LIBERAL JUDGE IN CONNECTICUT Is About To Make Could Be HUGE Threat To Our SECOND AMENDMENTObama s goal of making gun control a reality in the United States of America is one step closer, thanks to this radical judge A Connecticut judge ruled Thursday that a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used in the Sandy Hook shootings, and other companies, can move forward.A Connecticut Superior Court judge denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the companies involved in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of the rifle used in the deadly 2012 shootings.Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings on Dec. 14, 2012 to kill 26 people in less than five minutes. The families of the victims, which included 20 children, have sued the maker, distributor and seller of the rifle, arguing that the military-style gun should have never been available for civilians to purchase.Connecticut State Judge Barbara Bellis rejected the gun companies  argument that a 2005 federal law can protect gun businesses from civil lawsuits.Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the rifle, is named in the suit. Also named is Camfour Inc., a distributor of firearms, and the now-defunct Riverview Gun Sales, a dealer in East Windsor, Conn., that sold the rifle to the Lanza s mother in 2010. Via: Washington ExaminerNolan Finley, The Detroit News   The lawsuit, filed by nine victim families, claims Remington is liable for making and selling to the public a rifle unfit for civilian use.The claim plays right into the anti-gun lobby s latest end-around of the Constitution. It follows the strategy laid out in last week s Democratic debate by Hillary Clinton, who wants to open up both gun manufacturers and gun retailers to product liability lawsuits.While Clinton chortles derisively whenever it s pointed out that the threat of such litigation would become an effective ban on gun sales, and ultimately on gun ownership, that is precisely the desired outcome.Clinton s charge that gunmakers enjoy unique protection from liability isn t true. All manufacturers of defect-free, legal goods enjoy a broad shield against damage resulting from the intentional misuse of their products.Still, gun opponents compare firearm manufacturers with automakers, who are routinely sued when their cars and trucks are involved in a fatal accident. But those suits center around product malfunctions or design flaws. If someone gets drunk and plows an automobile into a group of children at a bus stop, the automaker is only liable if something was defective on the vehicle that contributed to the carnage.The weapons used by Lanza were not defective. The were misused. Neither the manufacturer nor the retailer, who is also being sued, sold them to Lanza. The emotionally troubled teen took them without permission from his mother s home. A negligence case could be made against the mother. She should not have allowed her deranged son access to her extensive arsenal; I m all for holding gun owners responsible for properly securing their firearms.Unfortunately, his mother was Lanza s first victim.Judge Barbara Bellis permitted the suit against Remington to proceed based on her gross misunderstanding of firearms.She agreed with the plaintiff s attorneys depiction of the Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle as a military weapon not intended for civilian use.That s just wrong. The difference between the Bushmaster and a common hunting rifle is cosmetic. It looks more lethal, but it operates the same way, firing one bullet with each pull of the trigger. It s not a machine gun; it doesn t fire rounds in bursts.If the military were to arm its soldiers with Bushmasters, it would lose every battle.Lanza used legal weapons that were sold within the strict confines of Connecticut s gun laws, but taken without the owner s permission.If that becomes the flimsy standard for manufacturer and retailer liability, as both this lawsuit and Hillary Clinton hope, it will be the end of gunmaking and sales in this country. And that s just what backers of this strategy want.politics
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: why decision liberal judge in connecticut is about to make could be huge threat to our second amendmentobama goal making gun control reality united states america one step closer thanks radical judge a connecticut judge ruled thursday lawsuit manufacturer gun used sandy hook shootings companies move connecticut superior court judge denied motion dismiss lawsuit companies involved manufacturing distribution sale rifle used deadly lanza used bushmaster rifle sandy hook elementary school shootings kill people less five minutes the families victims included children sued maker distributor seller rifle arguing gun never available civilians state judge barbara bells rejected gun companies argument federal law protect gun businesses civil arms manufacturer rifle named suit also named amour distributor firearms overview gun sales dealer east windsor sold rifle lanza mother via washington examinernolan finely the detroit news the lawsuit filed nine victim families claims remington liable making selling public rifle unfit civilian claim plays right lobby latest constitution it follows strategy laid last week democratic debate hillary clinton wants open gun manufacturers gun retailers product liability clinton charles decisively whenever pointed threat litigation would become effective ban gun sales ultimately gun ownership precisely desired charge gunmakers enjoy unique protection liability true all manufacturers legal goods enjoy broad shield damage resulting intentional misuse gun opponents compare firearm manufacturers automakers routinely sued cars trucks involved fatal accident but suits center around product malfunction design flaws if someone gets drunk flows automobile group children bus stop automated liable something defective vehicle contributed weapons used lanza defective the misused neither manufacturer retailer also sued sold lanza the emotionally troubled teen took without permission mother home a negligence case could made mother she allowed deranged son access extensive arsenal i holding gun owners responsible properly securing mother lanza first barbara bells permitted suit remington proceed based gross misunderstanding agreed plaintiff attorneys depiction bushmaster rifle military weapon intended civilian wrong the difference bushmaster common hunting rifle cosmetic it looks lethal operates way firing one bullet pull trigger it machine gun fire rounds military arm soldiers bushmasters would lose every used legal weapons sold within strict confines connecticut gun laws taken without owner becomes flimsy standard manufacturer retailer liability lawsuit hillary clinton hope end gunmaking sales country and backers strategy