That's what I was thinking. It seems that they might be saying that 1) these firearm companies making AR's knew their product could be modified to be a machine gun, and because of this, 2) all AR's should be considered machine guns (please don't think that I'm agreeing with this reasoning, just how I thought they were going about it). Some of the commenters in the article gave some good responses. I don't think it's going anywhere, and as @Grifter stated, when and where will these lawsuits end? Drunk driver incidents, thus holding car companies responsible?, Holding the aircraft makers responsible for 911, because they should have known hijacker could breakdown the cockpit door and fly the planes into buildings? It's just another money grab & anti Gun opportunity to hold the ones with the most money accountable instead of the actual person or persons that WAS responsible accountable. Can't get any money from him?, then let's go after the Gun manufactures. I'm truly sorry for those that lost loved ones to this massacre, but this lawsuit makes no sense at all.Ok, correct me if I am wrong, thought bump stocks were banned, so how can an AR-15 be considered a machine gun when the stocks were banned already......
