The gist of the case is about how the guns were marketed.

Tues Nov 12, 9:36 a.m.

"The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will not hear a closely-watched case against gun-maker Remington, a move the gunmaker has warned could potentially increase the liability of firearm manufacturers to suits brought by victims of gun crimes.

The court’s action will allow the families to move forward with their lawsuit.

The case was brought by family members of those killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead.

The families sued the makers of the gun that was used, an AR-15 style weapon made by Remington, in 2014, alleging that the company’s marketing of the weapon inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre.

Remington argued that its actions were protected under a 2005 law that shields gun-makers from liability for crimes committed with their products. That law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, has come under new scrutiny amid a rise in mass shootings.

An exception in the law, provided in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit. They claim that Remington marketed the weapon “as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal—namely, killing other human beings.”

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a divided opinion earlier this year that the family members could pursue their lawsuit, rejecting Remington’s argument. The court wrote that the family members are “entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations.”

The Supreme Court’s move will allow the lower court’s decision to stand, potentially opening the door to more lawsuits from victims of gun crime. Remington warned that such a decision would “eviscerate” protections provided for by Congress.

The justices have agreed to hear a case over the reach of the Second Amendment later this term. The case involves a now-defunct New York City ban on transporting handguns except directly to and from shooting range, which is being challenged by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

The Sandy Hook case is Remington Arms Co. v. Donna Soto, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria L. Soto, No. 19-168."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/1...-remington-guns.html

Killing other human beings isn't defacto illegal.

I'm sure any advertising from Remington would have a SD bent to it.

quote:

The families sued the makers of the gun that was used, an AR-15 style weapon made by Remington, in 2014, alleging that the company’s marketing of the weapon inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre.

More ambulance chasers looking for a big payout!

What happened was tragic but to hold Remington responsible is like holding Ford or GMC responsible for drunk drivers!

Yes, all looking for some kind of pay out. The Lanza boy was a troubled kid with a extremely irresponsible parent. That household should have never dabbled in firearms.

It'd still be ridiculous if Lanza had bought his rifle from an FFL. But he stole it after murdering his mom. HTF is a manufacturer remotely on the hook for this?

I hope Remington has the best attorney money can buy on retainer. Regardless, the defense should have a slam dunk win. I’d be asking if every person that commits a crime with fruits of a theft should be able to pass the blame to the manufacturer of the stolen property.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
What happened was tragic but to hold Remington responsible is like holding Ford or GMC responsible for drunk drivers!

So Ford and GM advertising speed, acceleration, and handling numbers for their cars far in excess of current speed limits/laws makes Ford and GM responsible for people driving recklessly and killing themselves or others? Absurd.

This is why I have virtually zero respect for the current judicial system. Congress makes the law, lawyers attack it on basically emotional grounds (and for a payday), and the courts ignore the law as written, functioning as the ruling monarchy in the country.

I really think the Supreme Court is failing this country. I just can't believe they couldn't get 4 votes to hear this case. No one even filed a dissent to the denial of cert.

This case is exactly the type of case that the PLCAA was designed to prevent. We've gotten to the point in this country where passing laws doesn't even matter anymore. If the liberals don't like those laws, they are essentially ignored or "interpreted" out of existence by liberal judges.

Even if Remington ultimately prevails, a big part of the injury to them and to the justice system is in the lawsuit itself. Remington has to spend time and treasure to defend it, and now that it has gone forward, you can expect hundreds of more suits against them and other gun manufacturers.
The progressive strategy now will be to bleed them to death by a thousand cuts.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
What happened was tragic but to hold Remington responsible is like holding Ford or GMC responsible for drunk drivers!

So Ford and GM advertising speed, acceleration, and handling numbers for their cars far in excess of current speed limits/laws makes Ford and GM responsible for people driving recklessly and killing themselves or others? Absurd.

This is why I have virtually zero respect for the current judicial system. Congress makes the law, lawyers attack it on basically emotional grounds (and for a payday), and the courts ignore the law as written, functioning as the ruling monarchy in the country.

Lawyers making the laws, arguing the laws, and deciding the application of the laws.

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, wait...

The only one that should be liable is the dead mother and they can't get any money from her. The other motivation is to try to bankrupt manufacturers.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 220-9er,

A agree with the lawsuit going forward but I think it's going to fail. They are arguing that the law doesn't apply because of the exception, they should have the ability to prove that in court.

Its not SCOTUS' responsibility to judge merits of the case, just the application of the law and there's a clear exception they are arguing applies.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
I really think the Supreme Court is failing this country. I just can't believe they couldn't get 4 votes to hear this case. No one even filed a dissent to the denial of cert.

This case is exactly the type of case that the PLCAA was designed to prevent. We've gotten to the point in this country where passing laws doesn't even matter anymore. If the liberals don't like those laws, they are essentially ignored or "interpreted" out of existence by liberal judges.

Even if Remington ultimately prevails, a big part of the injury to them and to the justice system is in the lawsuit itself. Remington has to spend time and treasure to defend it, and now that it has gone forward, you can expect hundreds of more suits against them and other gun manufacturers.
The progressive strategy now will be to bleed them to death by a thousand cuts.

Strategery perhaps given there might be shakiness in having the 5 votes needed for the correct decision. Add an election year to that mix.

All this does is allow the plaintiffs' case to proceed.

The court where the case is initially heard can still rule in Remington's favor. If I were Remington, I'd be thinking a bench trial is best (one vote to influence), whereas the Plaintiffs need 12 emotional votes to prevail.

I think that might be why the SCOTUS denied cert., i.e., let a lower court hear the volumes of testimony and decide. That starts to create the impediment to similar cases going forward.

As for the murderer and his first vicitm, if you haven't read some of the public documents you have no idea what first murder victim was dealing with by herself. She repeated tried to get her eventual matricidal progeny involuntarily committed, but the mental health and court systems utterly failed her (and him). For that reason, I almost wish she'd survived to tell that tale over and over on TV. It might have shifted the debate from "gun control" to "nutcase control."

A sure fire way to bankrupt firearm manufacturers.

All this means is that the Supremes declined to hear the case. They didn't say the law was "right" or that the Connecticut Court got it right. They just declined to hear this case at this time and stage. It is called denying the writ of certiorari.

The Supremes take up very few cases, and do so for reasons that are sometimes inscrutable. Guessing what a denial of cert means is an arcane and mystical art, not to be trifled with by mere mortals.

Seriously, this could mean almost nothing, or could be important. We don't know yet. One thing does seem certain, the Supremes are moving slow on these gun cases. Although it is also true that slow is their usual speed.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
A agree with the lawsuit going forward but I think it's going to fail. They are arguing that the law doesn't apply because of the exception, they should have the ability to prove that in court.

Its not SCOTUS' responsibility to judge merits of the case, just the application of the law and there's a clear exception they are arguing applies.

Oh horse shit. How many times has SCOTUS simply turned a 2A case away because they simply don't want to have to weigh in on the issue. My bet is if this case ever moves beyond the appellate court to SCOTUS, they'll deny hearing it again. The cowardice by the court on the topic of the 2A is enormous.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
One thing does seem certain, the Supremes are moving slow on these gun cases. Although it is also true that slow is their usual speed.

Its called cowardice. Plain and simple. And Roberts is at the head of that group trying to dive under his desk whenever a 2A case comes their way.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
A agree with the lawsuit going forward but I think it's going to fail. They are arguing that the law doesn't apply because of the exception, they should have the ability to prove that in court.

Its not SCOTUS' responsibility to judge merits of the case, just the application of the law and there's a clear exception they are arguing applies.

Oh horse shit. How many times has SCOTUS simply turns a 2A case away because they simply don't want to have to weigh in on the issue. There's no reason for SCOTUS to access this case, other than that a few of them have no business being on the court at all.

Respectfully disagree. Scotus had no reason to intervene in the case. There is a specific exception they are suing under. There's nothing for them to interpret. If you can't sue under the exception then what's the point of having it?

“The Supreme Court denied cert. That is not the same as stamping approval of the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court often allows wrong decisions to stand because they take only 0.1% of cases. I dont really think that there was any reason to take this case- no circuit split, and the case itself is still at an early stage and the Supreme Court can come back later after the trial.


ETA: this appeal was not even from a final determination, and Remington can continue to defend itself on multiple grounds (including First amendment claims which were not before the CT Supreme Court). The CT Supreme Court decision was pretty bad, but its very rare that the Supreme Court takes appeals at this stage of litigation.”

Remington's marketing is tame compared to others (like Glock, for instance). Think of the late Gunny's commercials. At this point in time it is "legal" and acceptable to advertise for self-defense.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
What happened was tragic but to hold Remington responsible is like holding Ford or GMC responsible for drunk drivers!

So Ford and GM advertising speed, acceleration, and handling numbers for their cars far in excess of current speed limits/laws makes Ford and GM responsible for people driving recklessly and killing themselves or others? Absurd.

This is why I have virtually zero respect for the current judicial system. Congress makes the law, lawyers attack it on basically emotional grounds (and for a payday), and the courts ignore the law as written, functioning as the ruling monarchy in the country.

I would go one step farther that if we were to hold the same standard to automobile manufacturers that they be held responsible for designing and selling a product that is capable of violating every speed limit law in every state. Also because of reckless use of such design be held responsible for every death caused by such use.