Quantcast

Supreme court allows Remington to be sued by Sandy Hook victims

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by sequins, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. desidog

    desidog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,507
    Absolutely. Any of those ads on TV that show the cars skidding obviously demonstrate unsafe driving methods.
     
  2. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,161
    They may advertise smarter now but it doesn't matter if I'm correct.

    His mother bought the gun, not him so the point is moot I'd think.
     
    FlSwampRat likes this.
  3. waterhouse

    waterhouse Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,949
    Location:
    Round Rock, TX
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he killed his mom and stole her rifle. It would seem that when this actually goes to trial they will have a hard time proving that he chose the rifle due to an advertisement, when it was his mom’s rifle.
     
    DoubleMag and 40-82 like this.
  4. Flechette

    Flechette Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    467
    Which means that it is also an attack on the First Amendment.
     
    Demi-human and ATLDave like this.
  5. LaneP

    LaneP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2019
    Messages:
    531
    Lanza certainly didn't see that ad and decide to commit the heinous act he did. Are video game producers/distributors being sued for encouraging violence (legit question)?
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  6. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    GA
    That is ultimately why I suspect that this lawsuit will fail but the intent for the plaintiffs was to get into Remington's and its advertising agencies files to root around. Most of these folks are financed by lawfare networks that live in court and are funded by the wealthy through grants, foundations, etc.

    Given that someone like you rightfully points out that other products might be on the hook will cause exposure to movies, video games, music, etc. gives a strong 1st Amendment argument at the trial level, let alone appellate review. Remington's lawyers apparently made lousy arguments on this point before the CT Supreme Court with only one CA Sup. Ct. case citation.
     
    40-82 and ATLDave like this.
  7. BigBore44

    BigBore44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,277
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    No. And they likely won’t be. But this case has so many holes in it a second rate attorney will tear it apart. Our members already have. But that doesn’t mean the right jury won’t convict.
     
  8. South Prairie Jim

    South Prairie Jim Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2019
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    South Prairie Wa.
    Does anyone here have a loved one killed in such an attack ?
     
  9. bdickens

    bdickens Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,085
    Location:
    Hockley , TX
    What does it matter?
     
    Flechette likes this.
  10. skeeterfogger

    skeeterfogger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Messages:
    722
    IMO, it will wind up back in SCOTUS but this time they will kill it. In doing so their findings will be that such a case would cause abuse of other industries. All things made are sold on a good faith premise. One buys a car in good faith it will be operated within the safety concerns and laws. Once the purchase is final it is the responsibility of the purchaser. This ruling will also cause a financial conundrum on those filing suit to such a degree as to deter further suit attempts.
     
  11. South Prairie Jim

    South Prairie Jim Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2019
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    South Prairie Wa.
    They may have a different perspective
     
  12. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,049
    Location:
    Northern KY
    A different perspective on what? On whether Adam Lanza ever saw that ad? On whether his mother was persuaded to buy the gun after seeing it? On whether the ad promotes the murder of children?

    I doubt it.

    I think SCOTUS is probably trying to allow a jury to do the right thing before they step in and fix this.
     
  13. rust collector
    • Contributing Member

    rust collector Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,422
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    It's not necessary to lose a loved one to commiserate with those who have. We are not rooting for one team or another. One of many troubling aspects of this case is the fishing expedition for communications and other things that may be used to give Remington a bloody nose or reason to settle.

    The actual issues at this stage are narrowly drawn and are a long way from resolution. All the news coverage does is open old wounds and stir the pot.
     
  14. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,625
    Location:
    Arizona
    Since it is decidedly outside of the remedies sought in the past as 'Product Liability" suits.... this will likely set a precedent for the subjective opinion of what products are and are NOT *good for us*.

    I see a tragedy-borne opportunity which has been scurrilously foisted on the victims by bottom-feeding attorneys intent on a quick settlement pay-day as it is unlikely - even in Civil Court - to be successful.

    I hope Remington has the balls to address this on two fronts, regardless the potential public perception.

    1) See it through to the bitter end with NO settlement.

    2) COUNTER-SUE!

    Every single manufacturer of every single product should be supporting Remington on this end-run of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Because, next up; motorcycles, 4WDs, quads (remember Honda's nightmare with ATCs?), commercially sold dogs, etc....



    Todd.




     
  15. WestTexShooter

    WestTexShooter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    129
    Am I correct that the original lawsuit has not even gone to trial?

    If so, could that, in and of itself, still take years?
     
  16. WestKentucky

    WestKentucky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    8,163
    Location:
    Middle Tn
    If they say that the gun was chosen because of an ad, it has zero standing in fact because the gun was not chosen or purchased by the perpetrator, but was rather stolen by the perpetrator and is simply a stolen item that was possessed by happenstance. Lanzas mothers family could potentially follow that to a lawsuit saying that the ad made him want to acquire that particular make/model because of the ad, and subsequently targetting her to get it, but even that is a stretch.
     
  17. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,503
    Location:
    CAAZ;TX?
    Are you trying to insinuate a point or are you actually curious of another perspective?
     
  18. total recoil

    total recoil Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,050
    Location:
    Michigan
    Sequens said "citing an exemption in the federal law"
    what exactly is the law that protects manufacturers from being sued??? What is the exemption?
     
  19. South Prairie Jim

    South Prairie Jim Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2019
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    South Prairie Wa.
    Sorry guys’
    I just struggle with these Shooting’s and senseless loss of life, my heart goes out to the families and first responders whose life’s are changed forever. y’all go back to typing & talking about legal positions I’ll shut up and log out.
    J
     
  20. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,909
    So let’s see... I get to sue everyone that makes a product on my car because I use it irresponsibility and get a speeding ticket. While we are at it, the band on the radio, the radio station, the sunglass manufacturer, the speed limit sign manufacturer and the Federal, State and Local Governments that built the roads well enough to go that fast and set arbitrary speed limits...I’m sure I left some out.

    YouTube, Google and pretty much any media outlet is also responsible too. Remington didn’t make that advertisement, an ad agency did, other companies accepted money to run them where they were distributed (another actor), another made the ink and yet another printed, someone else sold the magazines they were in.

    Everyone has to sensationalize things these days and omit the important details.

    Whats the exemption they cited, in order to proceed? That’s really the only thing that matters, as far as not being shielded.
     
  21. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,662
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    As is usual with these sorts of complex cases, a whole lot of folks don't understand what's going on -- in part because they rely on secondary sources, like the news media, for information, and in part because the natural course of litigation is non-intuitive and outside the ordinary scope of knowledge of even generally well educated persons.

    SCOTUS did not rule on the merits, i. e., it did not conclude that the plaintiffs' claim actually falls within a PLCAA exception. Remington can still, at an appropriate, later stage of the litigation, again seek a federal court ruling that the underlying suit is barred by the PLCAA.

    But Remington had taken what is called an interlocutory appeal, an appeal from a non-dispositive ruling. Interlocutory appeals tend to be disfavored. So it's perhaps not a surprise that SCOTUS declined to hear it.

    We've had a number of in depth discussion of this case:



    I outlined the course of this litigation in this post in the second thread:Now we need to get technical.
    In effect, this is just "in the ordinary course of business." Taking an appeal to SCOTUS was worth a try. But SCOTUS declining to step in right now isn't necessarily a surprise.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  22. sequins

    sequins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    855
    Thanks for adding some additional context on the specifics Frank. I'm very interested in the arc and outcome of this case.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  23. KNO3

    KNO3 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    66
    The fact that this case going forward is a good thing. The tortured logic that must be used to argue this case against Remington will ultimately rest on personal responsibility and mental health. To say that Remington is at fault will open wide any claim to any product that if used as marketed (which does not have to be factual) are liable for damages. How many car, truck, motorcycle, ginsu knife manufactures will be held to the same standard?
     
  24. <*(((><
    • Contributing Member

    <*(((>< Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,523
    Had to make sure this was in General Discussions and not Legal before I continue.

    Jim, I would think there is not one member on this board that wouldn't agree with the statement you made above. It is senseless, and our hearts are there with the families and secondary responders. This goes without saying, however the freedoms afforded by the constitution never come without a cost. I'm not trying to be hard on you with this post Jim, just giving perspective, I hope you don't take it that way.

    The 2nd Amendment is crucial to the upholding of the constitution, just look at where the colonists would have been had they not had private weapons to mount a revolution against the British, or look to recent history Venezuela that banned private gun ownership whose citizenry now regret allowing to happen (https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/30/venezuela-gun-ban-regret-maduro/), or to the Jews & Pols in Hitler's reign (https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/), or to Russian intellectuals during the push west 'Road of Bones' (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...4085/Road-of-Bones-where-slaves-perished.html), Russians under Stalin and Communism (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...tremendous-success-for-socialist-state-video/)

    To think that these things above which are only an abbreviation as to the harm that the dissolution of public freedoms can lead to cannot happen in American is fool hardy. I'm not saying you don't feel the same way; sometimes we just need to be reminded what is at stake when tragedy happens. Our freedoms we enjoy in this country are always at a cost. Whether it be from the blood of patriots who have served their country with their blood, limbs, mental state or even their lives. Or the cost of persons utilizing their freedom of speech to denigrate others, promote hate and discord; or undermine the sovereignty of the nation. All freedoms come at a cost. I believe that pro-2A gun owners have a huge desire to alleviate some of the problems that are occurring with the use of firearms, but solutions cannot lead to the dissolution of the 2nd Amendment. My heart goes out to those men, women and children that were caught in the crosshairs of evil; but the heart of man is deceitful and wicked so says the Lord, who can understand it? We will always have evil in different forms and we should always fight against it.


    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster


    The Founding Fathers knew we would be faced with such events which is why they were abundantly clear in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If we take personal responsibility out of the equation and place the blame on manufacturers of objects, to what end does this road take us? That is the position this thread topic is discussing, not whether or not people sympathize or mourn with those effected by the tragedies. I'm sorry that loved ones were lost in those tragedies but suing a bystander company with no involvement in the act for monetary gain in the shadow of the evil that was perpetrated is something else. When it comes down to it, the people who are suing I feel are not pro-2A (or are being led astray by emotions or an activist group) and we need to recognize this action as such and try and provide guidance to just what is at stake when we start legislating freedoms away.



     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  25. ponchh

    ponchh Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    Alexander AR
    Car manufacturers advertise high performance cars as the car that will make you the man. 0 to 60 performance and taking curves like it's on rails, top end speed are normal claims to fame.
    If someone does harm to another because of high speed driving negligence, will the car manufacturer be held responsible. I think not.
     
    Flechette likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice