Supreme Court allows Remington to be sued for Sandy Hook - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
 38Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 25 (permalink) Old Yesterday, 09:25 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: erie, pa
Posts: 13,050
Back To Top
Supreme Court allows Remington to be sued for Sandy Hook

Quote:
The Supreme Court said Tuesday a survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can pursue their lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 26 people.
The justices rejected an appeal from Remington Arms that argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...lawsuit-069826




if this succeeds i want victims of drunk drivers to sue the makers of the automobile and alcohol too !! this is insane. what ever happened to personal responsibility ? holding people accountable for their actions ? if they win this lawsuit, next time i get cut in the kitchen can i sue the knife maker ?? miss the nail and hit your thumb, go after the hammer maker ?


this could affect every manufacturer out there.
bpottorff and Mussgrass like this.

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com
go here click on the pink square, beat breast cancer
bohunr is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 (permalink) Old Yesterday, 09:46 AM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: conestoga,pa/Mills,Pa
Posts: 1,517
Back To Top
it `s the democrats fault for sticking their noses in our business and trying to ruin the country
bohunr, ruger300 and Mussgrass like this.
NorthernPotterCo is online now  
post #3 of 25 (permalink) Old Yesterday, 09:58 AM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: 5C & 3C
Posts: 1,147
Back To Top
I read a rather thorough discussion of this case on another forum.
Several lawyers (including some major 2A attorneys) agreed that SCOTUS really had no option other than to deny cert, and see it playing out as follows:
The plaintiff(s) in this particular case in CT were arguing Remington violated the "Marketing exemption" language of the act protecting manufacturers from misuse liability. Since no verdict has been handed down as of yet in CT, there's nothing for SCOTUS to review. (Remington filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the CT Supreme Court. Case has not yet started in CT.)
The plaintiffs are arguing that the ads run by Remington/Bushmaster caused the SH shooter to seek out and purchase the weapon used and that the marketing materials stated the product was ideal for unlawful purposes. The 2A lawyers' consensus is that this case has a high likelihood of getting tossed once the Plaintiffs begin making their "case" in court, as the shooter in question was not the buyer (he killed his mother and 'stole' the firearm.) thus making marketing irrelevant (poof, there goes the case.) and Remington/Bushmaster regains the product liability protections of the Act in question.
If by some chance, things go sideways in the CT court, and a verdict is obtained for the Plaintiffs, Remington will appeal to SCOTUS, at which point, they'll grant cert and overturn the CT court's decision.
Danesdad and lynxone like this.
Wingatchtochwilsit is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 25 (permalink) Old Yesterday, 10:00 AM
Regular Member
 
RacksnQuacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SW PA
Posts: 2,177
Back To Top
Apparently one or more of the "conservative" members voted the opposite of what you'd expect.
bohunr likes this.

Last edited by RacksnQuacks; Yesterday at 10:02 AM.
RacksnQuacks is offline  
post #5 of 25 (permalink) Old Yesterday, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Carbon County Pa/Kidder Township
Posts: 19,154
Back To Top
Very slippery slope allowing manufacturers to be sued for people's misuse of the products, whats next SNICKERS going to be sued because some diabetic ate a whole bag and slipped into a coma?

This was a case of someone misusing a product for purposes other than it was originally sold. Enough of the DEEP POCKETS law suites.

My ability to remember lyrics from songs of the 60's far exceed my ability to remember why I walked into the kitchen
Birch812 is online now  
post #6 of 25 (permalink) Old Yesterday, 10:15 AM
Hooked on HuntingPa
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: lanc. co.
Posts: 450
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingatchtochwilsit View Post
I read a rather thorough discussion of this case on another forum.
Several lawyers (including some major 2A attorneys) agreed that SCOTUS really had no option other than to deny cert, and see it playing out as follows:
The plaintiff(s) in this particular case in CT were arguing Remington violated the "Marketing exemption" language of the act protecting manufacturers from misuse liability. Since no verdict has been handed down as of yet in CT, there's nothing for SCOTUS to review. (Remington filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the CT Supreme Court. Case has not yet started in CT.)
The plaintiffs are arguing that the ads run by Remington/Bushmaster caused the SH shooter to seek out and purchase the weapon used and that the marketing materials stated the product was ideal for unlawful purposes. The 2A lawyers' consensus is that this case has a high likelihood of getting tossed once the Plaintiffs begin making their "case" in court, as the shooter in question was not the buyer (he killed his mother and 'stole' the firearm.) thus making marketing irrelevant (poof, there goes the case.) and Remington/Bushmaster regains the product liability protections of the Act in question.
If by some chance, things go sideways in the CT court, and a verdict is obtained for the Plaintiffs, Remington will appeal to SCOTUS, at which point, they'll grant cert and overturn the CT court's decision.
It's sad that it made it this far.
I'd like to see the plaintiffs pay all the court costs on this when they lose.
But in this "progressive" society we live in these days it's hard to digest ridiculousness on a daily basis.
bohunr and ruger300 like this.
treefisher is offline  
post #7 of 25 (permalink) Old Yesterday, 10:20 AM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: 5C & 3C
Posts: 1,147
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by treefisher View Post
It's sad that it made it this far.
I'd like to see the plaintiffs pay all the court costs on this when they lose.
But in this "progressive" society we live in these days it's hard to digest ridiculousness on a daily basis.
Yes, some good old tort reform would stop this nonsense... but remember, the "plaintiffs" (Sandy Hook families) aren't paying a penny for this... it's all being funded by various gun control activist groups and individuals (billionaires)... Folks with enough money (or other peoples' money) not to care...

The silver lining is that once this gets squashed (either by the CT court or SCOTUS) it should end the notion of suing the gun manufacturers for crimes committed with firearms completely and permanently.
bohunr and ruger300 like this.
Wingatchtochwilsit is offline  
post #8 of 25 (permalink) Old Yesterday, 09:15 PM
Super Moderator
 
BCozhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Close Enough! At least in the right country and state now.
Posts: 25,134
Back To Top
A former soldier, and coworker, posted NPR's story about this on Facebook. He's not a bad guy, but is one of those people that hasn't met a liberal policy he doesn't like, and typically makes condescending comments defending those policies...until presented with logic and reality.
The first post is from another soldier, who was taking an obvious shot at the one who posted the story. Then I chimed in, and you can see how it ended.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Moe Guns.JPG (101.7 KB, 5 views)
bohunr, DIYASUB and ruger300 like this.

Shoot straight

People are sick of politicians, and me, I hate cats in the house.
BCozhunter is online now  
post #9 of 25 (permalink) Old Today, 12:58 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: erie, pa
Posts: 13,050
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingatchtochwilsit View Post
I read a rather thorough discussion of this case on another forum.
Several lawyers (including some major 2A attorneys) agreed that SCOTUS really had no option other than to deny cert, and see it playing out as follows:
The plaintiff(s) in this particular case in CT were arguing Remington violated the "Marketing exemption" language of the act protecting manufacturers from misuse liability. Since no verdict has been handed down as of yet in CT, there's nothing for SCOTUS to review. (Remington filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the CT Supreme Court. Case has not yet started in CT.)
The plaintiffs are arguing that the ads run by Remington/Bushmaster caused the SH shooter to seek out and purchase the weapon used and that the marketing materials stated the product was ideal for unlawful purposes. The 2A lawyers' consensus is that this case has a high likelihood of getting tossed once the Plaintiffs begin making their "case" in court, as the shooter in question was not the buyer (he killed his mother and 'stole' the firearm.) thus making marketing irrelevant (poof, there goes the case.) and Remington/Bushmaster regains the product liability protections of the Act in question.
If by some chance, things go sideways in the CT court, and a verdict is obtained for the Plaintiffs, Remington will appeal to SCOTUS, at which point, they'll grant cert and overturn the CT court's decision.

i would like to see Remingtons ad that says their product is ideal for unlawful purposes
Birch812 likes this.

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com
go here click on the pink square, beat breast cancer
bohunr is online now  
post #10 of 25 (permalink) Old Today, 09:50 AM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: 5C & 3C
Posts: 1,147
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by bohunr View Post
i would like to see Remingtons ad that says their product is ideal for unlawful purposes
Yeah, it's quite the stretch by the Plaintiffs..
Apparently, they're arguing that references to "mission capable", "combat effectiveness", and calling 30 round magazines "standard" advocate/normalize "killing", and since murder is illegal, the ads advocate/incite criminal use of their product. They also cite the "man-card restored" ad...
Quite the leap, likely to get tossed on its face once the argument is spoken in court... not to mention the fact that shooter was not the one who purchased the rifle, therefore marketing is not a factor..
It's all -- grasping at straws by the Anti's...
bohunr and ruger300 like this.
Wingatchtochwilsit is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in













Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome