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

tbmcdermott1 · Nov 12, 2019

What is most preposterous about the lawsuit is the rifle wasn't sold to Adam Lanza, it was his mother's. She owned the rifle he murders her then takes her rifle, so how will they explain that the rifle was purchased by a middle-aged woman? She doesn't quite fit the description of a young male.

Uncle Duke · Nov 12, 2019

This entire suit is an end around deception play, right down to the purposeful "military" play of words. A suit that should have been thrown out from the get go. There was and is no advertising content past, present or future on Remington's part that made or would make a Lanza or some similar puke kill his mother, steal her rifle, load the rifle, and unload rounds on innocent school kids and staff. Lanza was a sick, demented and twisted puke of an individual, not a pawn in an advertising scheme. What is similarly twisted is that this circus act of an undoubtedly expensive lawsuit wasn't immediately slapped down, and has yet to be slapped down, as the frivilous farce and travesty that it is.

Boxtop · Nov 12, 2019

If the eventual suit is won by the plaintiffs, a bad precedent will have been set.

JPG · Nov 12, 2019

Boxtop said:
If the eventual suit is won by the plaintiffs, a bad precedent will have been set.

Yep alcohol companies then car manufactures will be next

rambling_one · Nov 12, 2019

The Supreme Court often allows wrong decisions to stand... .

Little comfort to those who must abide by them.

Alan3413 · Nov 12, 2019

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem to have forgotten who put them there.

PJDiesel · Nov 12, 2019

Occam · Nov 12, 2019

Alan3413 said:
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem to have forgotten who put them there.

What did they each say about this? Specifically, I mean.

jrumann59 · Nov 12, 2019

If Remington lets it run its course I think they would have grounds. Marketing is one thing but marketing goes by the wayside when the shooter did not buy the gun. I wonder what happens when some snowflake slits his/her wrist with a razor advertised to cut through things clean and in one pass.

SigZag · Nov 12, 2019

Uncle Duke said:
This entire suit is an end around deception play, right down to the purposeful "military" play of words. A suit that should have been thrown out from the get go. There was and is no advertising content past, present or future on Remington's part that made or would make a Lanza or some similar puke kill his mother, steal her rifle, load the rifle, and unload rounds on innocent school kids and staff. Lanza was a sick, demented and twisted puke of an individual, not a pawn in an advertising scheme. What is similarly twisted is that this circus act of an undoubtedly expensive lawsuit wasn't immediately slapped down, and has yet to be slapped down, as the frivilous farce and travesty that it is.

THIS!

Bikebreath · Nov 12, 2019

How can this fly, when the Brady Center dragged grieving families into the law suit with Lucky Gunner for selling ammo to a murderer...AND LOST...leaving the grieving families to pay all Lucky Gunner's legal fees.

This new case is a waste of time!

Occam · Nov 12, 2019

Bikebreath said:
How can this fly, when the Brady Center dragged grieving families into the law suit with Lucky Gunner for selling ammo to a murderer...AND LOST...leaving the grieving families to pay all Lucky Gunner's legal fees.

This new case is a waste of time!

Which will have to be established in court as it goes forward (or as it's appealed after the fact if it goes badly). I agree that it should have been chucked already, but that's not really where (and when) the SCOTUS would normally get involved. So it's a "not yet" situation. Alas for Remington, as they've gotta keep paying lawyers for a while on this.

jcutonilli · Nov 13, 2019

danb said:
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 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.

I am not sure how you can say that there was no split. The petitioners (Remington) claim that other circuits have interpreted the inclusiveness of which statues apply differently compared to the CT courts. Depending on which statues apply determines whether there is a valid case.

I am not sure what you mean by too early in the case. One of the main issues raised by the respondents (Victim Families) is that SCOTUS only hears cases that have a final decision. While there are exceptions, the respondents claim these exceptions don't apply here.

Unfortunately SCOTUS does not provide any reasoning.

I understand that the PLCAA does not shield all lawsuits and that certain "deceptive advertising" claims are allowed.

What I fail to understand is how you plausibly get from a military focused advertising to mass murder. The last time I checked even militaries are not allowed to commit mass murder. Remington does not really address this issue in their briefs. I wonder if this is yet another example of lawyers making bad arguments that lead to bad legal decisions.

Kharn · Nov 13, 2019

Occam said:
Which will have to be established in court as it goes forward (or as it's appealed after the fact if it goes badly). I agree that it should have been chucked already, but that's not really where (and when) the SCOTUS would normally get involved. So it's a "not yet" situation. Alas for Remington, as they've gotta keep paying lawyers for a while on this.

I agree, it will go back to SCOTUS with much higher legal bills in a few years, which the loser pays, with hopefully a different resolution.

Sting · Nov 13, 2019

The law suit in itself is a tool to make gun manufacture less profitable. They don’t have to win a suit. It’s death by a thousand cuts and the left is well versed in doing just that to one industry after another. You can sue for a defective product normally but not how it is used. If someone intentionally uses an auto to run over people in a terrorist attack can the manufacture of the auto be sued? While the fine points of the law are being debated the Left advances their agenda again.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Occam · Nov 13, 2019

Sting said:
The law suit in itself is a tool to make gun manufacture less profitable. They don’t have to win a suit. It’s death by a thousand cuts and the left is well versed in doing just that to one industry after another.

True.

If someone intentionally uses an auto to run over people in a terrorist attack can the manufacture of the auto be sued?

It's worth noting that the premise of the suit is the claim that Remington's marketing was communicating the suitability of their products for hunting down and killing people. Which is silly, of course, on the face of it - never mind the fact that the person who committed the crime STARTED with the separate crime of actually killing the guns's owner and stealing it. I don't think the suit will eventually prevail, but it's going to cost Remington money it should never have to spend along the way.

danb · Nov 13, 2019

jcutonilli said:
I am not sure how you can say that there was no split. The petitioners (Remington) claim that other circuits have interpreted the inclusiveness of which statues apply differently compared to the CT courts. Depending on which statues apply determines whether there is a valid case.

I am not sure what you mean by too early in the case. One of the main issues raised by the respondents (Victim Families) is that SCOTUS only hears cases that have a final decision. While there are exceptions, the respondents claim these exceptions don't apply here.

Unfortunately SCOTUS does not provide any reasoning.

I understand that the PLCAA does not shield all lawsuits and that certain "deceptive advertising" claims are allowed.

What I fail to understand is how you plausibly get from a military focused advertising to mass murder. The last time I checked even militaries are not allowed to commit mass murder. Remington does not really address this issue in their briefs. I wonder if this is yet another example of lawyers making bad arguments that lead to bad legal decisions.

Kharn said:
I agree, it will go back to SCOTUS with much higher legal bills in a few years, which the loser pays, with hopefully a different resolution.

I am not even sure that this will make it back to the high court because even the CT Supreme Court called the task of proving causation "herculean."

Plaintiffs have to prove that the unethical marketing causes Lanza to steal that rifle.

Plaintiffs should be careful what they wish for. All the CT court said is that this could go forward for deceptive or unethical marketing. Proving the claims is another thing, and as in the Luckygunner case, plaintiffs will have massive legal bills that gun control groups did not cover.

lazarus · Nov 13, 2019

danb said:
I am not even sure that this will make it back to the high court because even the CT Supreme Court called the task of proving causation "herculean."

Plaintiffs have to prove that the unethical marketing causes Lanza to steal that rifle.

Plaintiffs should be careful what they wish for. All the CT court said is that this could go forward for deceptive or unethical marketing. Proving the claims is another thing, and as in the Luckygunner case, plaintiffs will have massive legal bills that gun control groups did not cover.

This.

As much as I want the case thrown out on its ear, I can see the point on the marketing piece. I disagree that it rises to the level of actually being tortious.

But PLCAA doesn’t protect against marketing. If Remington can be shown to be trying to target mass shooters or those prone to violence specifically and especially if they knew about it, they should be held liable.

But I doubt that’s the case. Really, really doubt it. Especially as in this case the firearm was stolen from the owner after the owner was murdered. This case probably has no chance in the end.

This isn’t tobacco companies where they were shown to be intentionally targeting kids with their marketing and sales practices. I don’t see gun companies targeting mass shooters or those prone to violence specifically or intentionally.

krucam · Nov 13, 2019

MSI posted this on Twitter, thought I'd put it here. Excellent breakdown on the ramifications by David Hardy.

https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2019/11/supreme_court_d_2.php

Racer Doug14 · Nov 13, 2019

danb said:
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 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.

Did the psycho that murdered all of those children actually purchase the rifle? I believe his mother, whom he also murdered, purchased the rifle. Then who knows what persuaded her to buy that maker and model?

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Not Even ONE Indictment

DILLIGAF

Member

R.I.P.

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member, League the Armed

Not Even ONE Indictment

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Thread killer

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics