Supreme Court to allow Sandy Hook parents to sue gun maker Remington

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Bigfoot21075

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 3, 2008
    1,404
    Elkridge, MD
    Supreme Court to allow Sandy Hook parents to sue gun maker Remington

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/s...PNM0VHCZYLzrHD2HlLQi-Aq_A2gN-S_Vsoli5UwUJ-Whs

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

    The justices rejected an appeal Tuesday from Remington Arms that argued a 2005 federal law shields firearms manufacturers from most lawsuits when their products are used in crimes.

    THESE STATES SELL THE MOST GUNS

    The court's order allows a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, school in 2012 to pursue their claims.


    The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that gunman Adam Lanza used to kill 20 first graders and six educators. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.

    The National Rifle Association was among those urging the court to jump into the case and end the lawsuit against Remington.
     

    Speed3

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 19, 2011
    7,816
    MD
    This is INSANE!!!! So next time I get a speeding ticket, i'm suing the manufacturer(ex Honda/Ford, etc) for building a vehicle that goes above the speed limit. I want my ticket paid, lost time from work, pain and suffering also.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    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.
     

    Bigfoot21075

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 3, 2008
    1,404
    Elkridge, MD
    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.

    THANK YOU for the clarity. :thumbsup:
     

    Decoy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2007
    4,927
    Dystopia
    I think this is a clear indicator of how all 2A cases are going to be handled by a Roberts court.
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    I would have preferred a GVR, but I agree that this is not the end of the world. Remington is going to have to spend a bunch to defend themselves, but they are still likely to win out in the end.
     

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,312
    Underground Bunker
    It is so shameful to be able to sue over a product that worked as manufactured and was not defected . Just by a mad-man gunman hell-bent on death decided to use a tool to kill . What is next a fork being sued for making a person fat , or maybe bacon being sued for being so delicious
     

    DAMUE

    Active Member
    Aug 31, 2012
    196
    Pasadena
    So Bloomberg and a bunch of other billionaire scumbags can just finance unlimited lawsuits of every single gun manufacturer and put them all out of business. We already have a law passed by Congress that is supposed to prevent this harassment. Totally ridiculous.
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,778
    Baltimore County
    I always here on this forum that SCOTUS is where we are going to get our protection? This seems like the money coming to defend it punishment in and of itself regardless of where the lawsuit goes, it still cost legal fees.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,240
    Montgomery County
    I always here on this forum that SCOTUS is where we are going to get our protection? This seems like the money coming to defend it punishment in and of itself regardless of where the lawsuit goes, it still cost legal fees.

    What you here (um, hear) is that where legislative bodies - especially at various city/county/state levels - are now totally lost causes, the courts are the only venue where some sorts of relief and return to constitutionalism can occur. Doesn't mean every case is going to go right. The SCOTUS certainly can't take on every one of the thousands of cases that ask for cert, especially at every level in the lower court food chain process where that is asked of it.

    I would imagine that Remington (or a similar victim of this sort of predatory nonsense) could ask for some sort of emergency injunction in order to avoid financial ruin in just the legal costs of fighting such a suit.

    I'm reminded of a recent conversation with a rep from Smith & Wesson, who told me that the company is now essentially a giant law firm that once in a while manufactures some firearms.
     

    Uncle Duke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 2, 2013
    11,667
    Not Far Enough from the City
    So Bloomberg and a bunch of other billionaire scumbags can just finance unlimited lawsuits of every single gun manufacturer and put them all out of business. We already have a law passed by Congress that is supposed to prevent this harassment. Totally ridiculous.

    I always here on this forum that SCOTUS is where we are going to get our protection? This seems like the money coming to defend it punishment in and of itself regardless of where the lawsuit goes, it still cost legal fees.

    Increasingly it seems with the SCOTUS intervening in our favor, more like hoping that's the case.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    For those that have not read the lawsuit, or the CT state opinion, this is an important note:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/suprem...-hook-families-11573569589?mod=article_inline


    The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected that argument in a March 2019 decision that provided a potential road map for lawsuits against gun makers when their weapons are used in mass shootings. The state court by a 4-to-3 vote said that while the Sandy Hook families couldn’t sue Remington for merely selling the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used in the shooting, they could proceed on allegations the company improperly marketed the weapon to civilians for use in military-style combat against perceived enemies.

    The case remains at a preliminary stage in Connecticut and hasn’t yet gone to trial. But plaintiffs now are in line to take pretrial discovery of Remington, a process that could give them access to internal documents that will shed more light on the company’s marketing and promotional practices.


    The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act does not pre-empt "deceptive" advertising. For example, if they promise you rifle X for price $, and it turns out to be only the lower (bait and switch). Or it turns out "firing pin is extra" or some baloney.

    Besides the fact that there is no split among the circuits, the trial is at an early stage and no jury has in fact found that any advertising is "deceptive." That is what the trial is for - to see if any advertising is deceptive. After that, Remington can still appeal on multiple grounds.

    Sorry but even if I were on SCOTUS, I would have rejected this petition as being too early in the process. It does not mean anything at this point - clickbait headlines notwithstanding.
     

    Tebonski

    Active Member
    Jan 23, 2013
    631
    Harford County
    Have FAITH! After Trump replaces Ginsberg I bet Justices Breyer and Sotomayor will say what the heck no use staying around being in the minority 100% of the time. Trump will replace them too so we'll have only one lonely dem socialist justice left. By then C.J. Roberts can go full lib and it won't matter.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,064
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    So Bloomberg and a bunch of other billionaire scumbags can just finance unlimited lawsuits of every single gun manufacturer and put them all out of business. We already have a law passed by Congress that is supposed to prevent this harassment. Totally ridiculous.

    Ponder this:

    Remington will be the first domino to fall to the near-infinite resources of the Gun Grabber Lobby. Once all the U.S. manufacturers of "Weapons of War" are bankrupted and shuttered, we will have a National Security crisis. Why?

    Because there will no longer be an American-based manufacturer of small arms for the Military...
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,167
    If this meant what the click bait headline wants you to believe it would be horrible news for every manufacturer. Just imagine how many lawsuits would be generated in suing automobile companies. My son/daughter was killed in an accident and it is the car builder's fault because: they go to fast, they are not strong enough, the brakes should stop quicker, you advertise them implying they are race cars, they roll over to easy, etc. Then multiply by home builders and house fires; pharmaceutical companies and overdoses; swimming pool builders and drownings; the list becomes endless.

    The SCOTUS took a pass on this one case, think back on how many 2A cases did they pass before taking the New York one.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,945
    Messages
    7,259,799
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom