Ct Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Suit Against Remington to Proceed

[Steal2B]

The state’s highest court revived a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by families of victims killed in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., against the manufacturer of the semiautomatic gun used by Adam Lanza ....


The court ruled that the owner of the Bushmaster rifle brand wasn’t shielded by a 2005 federal law that gives firearm sellers and manufacturers protection from liability claims.

Manufacturer of AR-15 Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook Massacre, Court Rules

 

[Catskillkid]

Was just going to post on this topic. How the hell does this not violate the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?!

 

[Catskillkid]

Now I see, (had to go to a NY Slimes article on the subject). Still BS though.

The court agreed with the lower court judge’s decision to dismiss claims that directly challenged the federal law shielding the gun companies from litigation, but found the case can move forward based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

Justices wrote in the majority opinion that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

 

[SomeSoldier]

Wtf?? Unfair trade practices?? With words like that you think they would be talking about holder's F&F trading.

 

[@thewheels]

Black robes strike again...

 

[GOYABEAN]

Better add everyone the scumbag killer had contact through his entire life growing up babysitter teachers Dr school bus drivers lunch personal barbershop and local politicians ! because I'm sure they were to blame also

 

[C3D]

Activist judges will save the world. Have a Constitutional right specifically mentioned, or a law that preempt state law?

No problem! Make a new legal theory to suit your political views. No need to follow the law.

 

[Twogunwilly]

Such bullshit, this is exactly why we need RBG to check into hotel hell and get this deck permanently stacked in America's favor.

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Well then now all the auto makers shod be sued for DWI deaths then.

 

[oc shooter]

ain't that a can of worms!!!!

 

[Catskillkid]

Well then now all the auto makers shod be sued for DWI deaths then.

Kind of like this email I just got from the Second Amendment Foundation:





SAF SAYS CT. GUN LAWSUIT LIKE ‘PROSECUTING CAR MAKERS FOR CRIMES OF CAR THIEVES’


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today criticized the 4-3 split decision by the Connecticut state Supreme Court that reinstated a lawsuit against Remington Arms over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used in the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting.
“This ruling strains logic, if not common sense,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court dismissed the bulk of the lawsuit’s allegations, but appears to have grasped at this single straw by deciding that the advertising is somehow at fault for what Adam Lanza did that day in December more than six years ago.
“This is like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles,” he added.
Lanza, 20, first killed his mother and took her legally-purchased Bushmaster rifle to the school, where he murdered 20 youngsters and six adults. The lawsuit contends that Remington’s advertising was designed to glorify the Bushmaster rifle and enhance its appeal to younger consumers.
Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the majority, said that the “regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the state’s police powers.”
“That is absurd in this case,” Gottlieb observed. “Did the advertising even remotely suggest that the Bushmaster is best for murdering people? It appears to me like the court was looking for a way to squeak around the provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that Congress passed in 2005. After all, the court dismissed most of the allegations, but now has decided that advertising might be at fault. That’s a stretch of credulity worthy of surgical elastic.”
“There is no evidence the killer was driven by any advertising whatsoever,” he said. “This is an affront to the First Amendment as well as the Second. Even hinting that the killer was motivated in some way by an advertising message is so far out in the weeds that it may take a map for the court to find its way back.”

 

[togmaster]

That's what happens when liberals appoint judges.

 

[livingston]

Dangerous Anti-2nd Amendment Lawsuit Win in ‘Liberal’ Court
By
S.Noble
-
March 14, 2019

Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.

IT’S GOING TO BANKRUPT REMINGTON IF NOTHING ELSE!
More at ...
Dangerous Anti-2nd Amendment Lawsuit Win in 'Liberal' Court

 

[livingston]

From the above article ...
It is a precedent-setting lawsuit. If the litigants win, gun manufacturers will be held responsible for the crimes people commit with their product. If they don’t win, the company will possibly go out of business over the costs of the suit anyway. It’s a win-win for gun grabbers.

The concept behind the lawsuit is flawed. It is like suing Williams Sonoma for a woman killing her husband after hitting him over the head with one of their pots.

If this legal doctrine gains steam, particularly at the Federal appellate level, those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights could be in trouble. Gun companies found liable for senseless and unforeseeable tragedies could be litigated out of existence by lawsuit after lawsuit.

This case is meant to greatly weaken the rights and protections of gun makers with the ultimate goal of putting them out of business.

That will bankrupt every gun mfg.....
Let the hoarding begin...

 

[byron]

Wikipedia has it righ tif they left out the formerly. The Connecticut Supreme Court, formerly known as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, is the highest court in the U.S. stateof Connecticut. all but 1 judge are dumocraps

 

[Doc8404]

I hate how litigious our nation has become.

But we should sue big companies the next chance we can.

Medications.

Cars.

Planes.

Etc.

 

[DoD1776]

Ok, this judge needs to be removed, clearly is a fucking retard.

 

[GOPerfect]

I love this ruling...

I hope these Libtards, all of them, reap what they sow.

Car manufactures being sued over car crashes.

The food industry being sued due to all the fatty's in America.

The list can go on and on and on.

Reap what you sow fuckers!

 

[Hillbilly77]

Always remember that Lanza was not in legal possession of any firearm. He had murdered the lawful owner of the guns he used in the shooting and stole the guns from his murder victim.

The idea that anybody except the shooter is responsible for anything is nothing more than anti-gun political opportunism.

They are pushing their agenda while standing on the graves of murdered children. They are soulless, heartless bastards.

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[libertysnake]

I love this ruling...

I hope these Libtards, all of them, reap what they sow.

Car manufactures being sued over car crashes.

The food industry being sued due to all the fatty's in America.

The list can go on and on and on.

Reap what you sow fuckers!

Forgot the biggest one:

Hollywood being sued for movies filled with tons of gun violence.

 

[Phazer]

Well then now all the auto makers shod be sued for DWI deaths then.

Actually, in a DWI case, the list of defendants should therefore include:

• Automobile makers
• Asphalt suppliers and manufacturers
• Road paint suppliers and manufacturers
• Tire manufacturers
• Windshield glass suppliers
• Auto glass manufacturers
• Auto glass installers (if after market replacement done)
• Alcoholic beverage suppliers and manufacturers
• Plastic cup manufacturers
• Drink glass manufacturers
• Etc.....

 

[Catskillkid]

Actually, in a DWI case, the list of defendants should therefore include:

• Automobile makers
• Asphalt suppliers and manufacturers
• Road paint suppliers and manufacturers
• Tire manufacturers
• Windshield glass suppliers
• Auto glass manufacturers
• Auto glass installers (if after market replacement done)
• Alcoholic beverage suppliers and manufacturers
• Plastic cup manufacturers
• Drink glass manufacturers
• Etc.....

Don't forget cell phone companies

 

[Bob]

Here is the actual ruling.

It's very clear that the CT Supreme Court was looking for an opportunity to revive the lawsuit. They actually agree several times that the suit should have died under PLCAA, but they concluded in essence that Remington was malicious in advertising a military weapon to the civilian market.

Even if found liable, I suspect that Remington has a solid case to have the relevant sections of Connecticut law declared invalid as a violation of the Commerce Clause.

 

[Grimscale]

they concluded in essence that Remington was malicious in advertising a military weapon

Why has no one fought the "military weapon" designation?
ARs are NOT "military weapons".

But, then again, who cares about truth when there is money to be won.
Let this move forward. Each and every Democrat who voted to keep our borders unsecured is now on the legal chopping block whenever an illegal kills or otherwise hurts someone. The precedent has been set.

 

[Phazer]

Why has no one fought the "military weapon" designation?
ARs are NOT "military weapons".

But, then again, who cares about truth when there is money to be won.
Let this move forward. Each and every Democrat who voted to keep our borders unsecured is now on the legal chopping block whenever an illegal kills or otherwise hurts someone. The precedent has been set.

Bingo! Nobody has gone to war under the U.S. flag with a semiautomatic AR-style rifle.

 

[Phazer]

Here is the actual ruling.

It's very clear that the CT Supreme Court was looking for an opportunity to revive the lawsuit. They actually agree several times that the suit should have died under PLCAA, but they concluded in essence that Remington was malicious in advertising a military weapon to the civilian market.

Even if found liable, I suspect that Remington has a solid case to have the relevant sections of Connecticut law declared invalid as a violation of the Commerce Clause.

Ummmm.....from the court statement:

The trial court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs did not plead a
legally sufficient cause of action based on negligent entrustment under
this state’s common law and, therefore, properly struck the plaintiffs’
claims predicated on that legal theory: the plaintiffs failed to establish
that the defendants had any reason to expect that L’s mother, the direct
purchaser of the rifle, was likely to use the rifle in an unsafe manner
or in a manner that would involve an unreasonable risk of physical
harm; moreover, this court declined the plaintiffs’ invitation to expand
the common-law doctrine of negligent entrustment to allow such a cause
of action to proceed on a theory that it was reasonably foreseeable to
the defendants that, following the initial entrustment of a dangerous
instrumentality, such as the rifle in question, that instrumentality would
come into the possession of someone like L, who would use it in an
unsafe manner, and, in any event, it was unnecessary to decide whether,
in the present case, a cause of action for negligent entrustment could
proceed under such a theory because the plaintiffs did not allege that
any of the defendants possessed any knowledge or had any specific
reason to believe either that L’s mother would share the rifle with L or
that L was especially likely to operate it unsafely or illegally; furthermore,
to the extent that the plaintiffs were seeking to pursue their negligent
entrustment claim on the theory that any commercial sale of assault
weapons to civilian users constitutes negligent entrustment because the
societal costs of such sales outweigh the perceived benefits, this court
followed the lead of other courts in rejecting that theory​

So...why is this proceeding?

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

If I was a lawyer for Remington I would file a motion to dismiss if plaintif could not prove a Remington firearm was used to inflict injury. Initial reports stated a Glock pistol was used. From what I've read about this tragedy all evidence of the means of injury have been destroyed or sealed.

 

[Catskillkid]

If I was a lawyer for Remington I would file a motion to dismiss if plaintif could not prove a Remington firearm was used to inflict injury. Initial reports stated a Glock pistol was used. From what I've read about this tragedy all evidence of the means of injury have been destroyed or sealed.

I don't mean to turn this into a conspiracy theory thread but I (and many others) have great doubts that this event happened in the way that the media/government says that it did. Initial reports stated that the killer used a pistol (probably a Glock) and a shotgun and that the AR-15 was in the trunk of the car.

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

We are witnessing the biggest conspiracy in American history right now where AG Loretta Lynch, Deputy AG's, FBI Director and Deputy Directors, The heads of Intelligence agencies all conspired to elect Clinton as President and remove President Trump from office. I think it will eventually lead to Barack Obama.


I saw the AR-15 removed from the trunk of the car on live TV. The police later staged a re-enactment where only the shotgun was removed.