SCOTUS lets lawsuit against Rem. Arms move forward

[Edwardteach72]

Looks like SCOTUS is letting the sandy hook families lawsuit continue?

Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit go forward

The Supreme Court is letting a lawsuit proceed against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

www.weny.com

 

[Steal2B]

The logic of letting this simmer and continue, contrary to the clear unambiguous arguments presented concerning Federal Law, makes no sense. It will still fester and come back to SCOTUS.

 

[carpediem]

They will use this to hammer gun manufacturing out of existence, unless someone with a living brain cell puts an end to it. If not, every manufacturer should be liable for the behavior of their products.

 

[Steal2B]

So I guess we are looking at a future where all of the United States military small arms will be manufactured overseas (with no US assets) in a country that will not support lawsuits from the ambulance chasing crowd . The same may go for the manufacturing cars, trucks, jets, chemical explosives, pesticides, flammables, knives, etc.

 

[Edwardteach72]

So to be clear, the lawsuit is not going after the manufacturing and the sale of the gun, but after the company and they way they marketed the gun

 

[Steal2B]

Using direct argument from the ambulance chasers ... items like black powder rifles, cross bows, archery bows, revolvers, semiauto handguns, every rifle that fires a bullet, every round of most ammunition, most every knife, most hatchets, and even every jet propelled aircraft shares technology with military products designed to kill in battle but is marketed and sold to the civillian population who has the right to own and use those products.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

So to be clear, the lawsuit is not going after the manufacturing and the sale of the gun, but after the company and they way they marketed the gun

This is what confuses me. Show me the ad campaign that Remington put out that advocates mass shooting or using firearms unlawfully.

 

[Defilade]

So to be clear, the lawsuit is not going after the manufacturing and the sale of the gun, but after the company and they way they marketed the gun

Self defense and Hunting? Good luck with that.

 

[Catskillkid]

So to be clear, the lawsuit is not going after the manufacturing and the sale of the gun, but after the company and they way they marketed the gun

That's the way I read it too. They're arguing that they were advertising the military features and the lethality of the weapon

This is what confuses me. Show me the ad campaign that Remington put out that advocates mass shooting or using firearms unlawfully.

Best they can do is the Bushmaster ad where they say your man-card is reinstated. I don't ever recall seeing an ad advertising a gun saying it's the
"best thing ever" for shooting up a school.

 

[Edwardteach72]

This is what confuses me. Show me the ad campaign that Remington put out that advocates mass shooting or using firearms unlawfully.

Trust me I'm not defending the argument. But that is how the case is being structured

And at the same time lot of companies (couldnt find a Remington specific but for obvious reasons, search Remington ar15 advertising and guess what comes up... all this court stuff)

But bushmaster ..

 

[Catskillkid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6a3afe-055a-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

A little more detail on their angle:

The narrow state court decision limited liability for gunmakers based on how they advertise their firearms, rather than on the sale to third parties who go on to commit crimes. In its ruling, the court said companies that market military-style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies could be violating state fair trade laws.

Even so, the decision was seen as having broad implications for gun-control advocates across the country who have had little success in seeking ways to hold gunmakers responsible for crimes committed with their products.

 

[Steal2B]

That's the way I read it too. They're arguing that they were advertising the military features and the lethality of the weapon

Like this?

 

[@thewheels]

The CT supreme cohort are plainly black robed bandits.

The logic on display is twisted and clearly shows the CT bandits' agenda.
Bushmaster's advertising campaign persuaded Lanza's MOTHER to purchase the rifle and responsibly lock it in the safe?!? And then get herself killed?

Fuck their mouth breathing, mental gyrations needed to come to that illogical conclusion.
And screw scrotum's lack of interest to assert the law as it was passed. Their utter lack of impetus allows federal law to be ignored.

 

[Steal2B]

With their arguement maybe it is not much more of a distorted stretch for ambulance chasers to use 9-11 Victims to sue Boeing for their commercial division airing ads about their military prowess?

Boeing TV Spot, 'The Future Is Built Here'

Boeing doesn't believe that the future is somewhere out there shrouded in darkness in the unknown depths of space. They've made advancements in technology through aerospace applications for both civilian and military purposes that have let them explore new ways to connect to others. With so much...

ispot.tv

 

[ArmedCorgi]

That's the way I read it too. They're arguing that they were advertising the military features and the lethality of the weapon



Best they can do is the Bushmaster ad where they say your man-card is reinstated. I don't ever recall seeing an ad advertising a gun saying it's the
"best thing ever" for shooting up a school.

View attachment 56737

Meh...if ads like that are the ads they are trying to say promote mass violence they are grasping at straws.

Trust me I'm not defending the argument. But that is how the case is being structured

And at the same time lot of companies (couldnt find a Remington specific but for obvious reasons, search Remington ar15 advertising and guess what comes up... all this court stuff)

But bushmaster .. View attachment 56738

To clarify I wasn't suggesting you were defending their argument. My comment was more directed at their argument. The ad you posted looks more like it was directed at law enforcment but even if it is for the civilian market, it doesn't suggest mass murder.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Meh...if ads like that are the ads they are trying to say promote mass violence they are grasping at straws.

To clarify I wasn't suggesting you were defending their argument. My comment was more directed at their argument. The ad you posted looks more like it was directed at law enforcment but even if it is for the civilian market, it doesn't suggest mass murder.

The argument isnt that the companies are promoting mass shootings. The argument is the companies are marketing military weapons designed to kill to civilians ... there is a difference and trying to say that they are claiming the first is grasping at straws and not actually focusing on the severity of the situation

 

[ArmedCorgi]

The argument isnt that the companies are promoting mass shootings. The argument is the companies are marketing military weapons designed to kill to civilians ... there is a difference and trying to say that they are claiming the first is grasping at straws and not actually focusing on the severity of the situation

So basically even just the image of an AR15 is what they are after.

 

[Edwardteach72]

So basically even just the image of an AR15 is what they are after.

No it has to do with CT and their states Fair trade law

 

[@thewheels]

No it has to do with CT and their states Fair trade law

Are you implying the CT's fair trade law contradicts the federal law?

 

[Defilade]

I'll bet Scotus plays this like the major lawsuits against Tabbaco manufacturers. Tabbaco=Cancer..AR's=Mass Casualties.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Are you implying the CT's fair trade law contradicts the federal law?

I'm not implying anything? Just stating what they are using as their argument for the case since people are missing what they are trying to do by saying car manufacturers or other shit which is dangerous to do because it shows how low the 2A communities guard is while at the same time how had the anti gunners are pushing all the time

 

[Catskillkid]

This is a deeply concerning case with far reaching implications (and not just for firearms laws). If they win, it's open season (to use a poorly worded phrase I know) on firearms manufacturers. Given the current political climate I could see any of ads (or even ads you see run in Guns and Ammo or most other firearm publications) as being marketed to civilians because of the weapon's efficiency in killing. It's going to come down to who makes the best argument.

The Plaintiff, whose argument is going to be that AR-15 rifles are being marketed as being devices suited to one thing: efficiently killing human beings; or the Defense, whose argument is going to be that this is marketing material, no different that Ferrari saying the car can go over 100 mph with flashy page layouts and websites, and that they're not implying that they should be used to kill human beings, rather that they should be used for hunting, target (sporting) purposes and self defense.

Given the political climate, I don't know whose argument is going to be believed. If we lose then lawsuits against every firearm manufacturer will commence immediately and they'll be sued out of existence. Even if they win every court case they will not be able to pay for all the legal fees associated with defending the claims against them.

Here's hoping that we get a sensible jury.

 

[Grimscale]

Basing a lawsuit on made-up terms such as "military-style" and "a weapon as dangerous as " (implying an AR is somehow more dangerous than any other rifle) should have been automatic fails.
But, this could get final, official, definitions of "military-style", etc., on which to fight these infringements.
Also,
Doesn't this now open CT up to discovery of evidence of the shooting that they've been suppressing all these years? ie: picture proof that the AR was what was recovered, the coroner's reports, etc.?

 

[Catskillkid]

Basing a lawsuit on made-up terms such as "military-style" and "a weapon as dangerous as " (implying an AR is somehow more dangerous than any other rifle) should have been automatic fails.
But, this could get final, official, definitions of "military-style", etc., on which to fight these infringements.
Also,
Doesn't this now open CT up to discovery of evidence of the shooting that they've been suppressing all these years? ie: picture proof that the AR was what was recovered, the coroner's reports, etc.?

Can't speak to the latter part about discovery (maybe??)

But be careful what you wish for. Sure they may finally define what "assault weapon" is finally, but it may be overly broad. I could see this coming out as saying ANY semi-automatic weapon is an "assault weapon" and therefore ANY manufacturer that markets semi-automatic weapons to civilians can be sued.

 

[Shadow2]

from what i read the suit goes into some swill about them marketing to kids in video games. If that their stance they have no case. Video games at best would pay licensing for using any brand names not the other way around. I'd be very surprised colt paid a video game to use their guns as add placement in a game. This reminds me of the late 80's early 90's when Heavy Metal was being blamed for teen suicide.

What will likely happen the lawsuit will fail and if they do the parents and those who backed them should be required to pay Remington's legal fees.

 

[MoMan]

So if some deranged asshole decides to shoot a couple of people with his deer rifle, how long does it take for their survivors to go after the rifle manufacturer. I mean, they market their 'bolt action' rifles for 'hunting, and killing' game after all!!
What about when a gang banger in chi-RAQ decides to take out his competition with a handgun, that is advertised in a gun magazine as a good choice for personal defense!
When/where does it stop?

 

[Catskillkid]

So if some deranged asshole decides to shoot a couple of people with his deer rifle, how long does it take for their survivors to go after the rifle manufacturer. I mean, they market their 'bolt action' rifles for 'hunting, and killing' game after all!!
What about when a gang banger in chi-RAQ decides to take out his competition with a handgun, that is advertised in a gun magazine as a good choice for personal defense!
When/where does it stop?

And THAT is the truly dangerous part.

Furthermore, it opens up the opportunity to sue ANY company if someone uses their product in a negligent way or in a way that it was not intended to be used. Suing Chevy if a drunk drives his truck and kills someone. Suing Coors for making the beer that got that person drunk. Suing drug maker if someone purposefully overdoes on their pills. Suing Purdue Chicken if someone chokes on a chicken bone. It really can be endless if that precedent is set.

The argument the Plaintiffs are going to try and make is that THE intended use of Bushmaster and any assault weapon (or any firearm for that matter) is to kill people and therefore that's how they're marketed (regardless of what a particular ad says). Backdoor ban on firearms is what this will become.

 

[tirwin1]

This is what happens when words mean whatever a bunch of liberal judges say they mean.

 

[meketrefe]

This is how the first lawyer ever got his first job after being a philosopher.

 

[Acer-m14]

who ruled .. SCOTUS or CT's Supreme Court .. ? i heard it was a CT.SC ruling .. damn fake news these days ..