Gun Industry-throw out Sandy Hook lawsuit

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!

    • Register Log in
    W

    wbw2123

    Active Member
    Nov 19, 2012
    905
    j_h_smith said:
    Well technically that is somewhat correct. The parent company of Remington bought Bushmaster years ago.
    Click to expand...

    Yes and no, Bushmaster was a subsidiary of Cerberus wealth purchased a year before Remington. Both were among others consolidated as Freedom Group. Near as I can tell Bushmaster is still a subsidiary of Freedom Group and Remington is an LLC of the same. Remington Arms LLC does not appear to own Bushmaster Firearms International.

    Either way I'm glad to see a threat to lawful commerce was denied.
     
    T

    ted76

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 20, 2013
    3,151
    Frederick
    How may rounds does it take to cook a barrel that bad?
    Report say that 154 rounds were fired from the rifle in approximately 5 minutes, doesn't seem like that would cook a barrel that bad.
    :tinfoil:
     
    Jim12

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    34,087
    zoostation said:
    The one on the bottom being held by the person with confused chromosomes was just an example they had brought in to the CT legislature to show how scary AR-15's look. It was never touted as the Sandy Hook rifle.
    Click to expand...

    That is, indeed, a scary picture.

    There's a gun in it, too?
     
    Inigoes

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,553
    SoMD / West PA
    Court Opens Door for Sandy Hook Parents to Sue Gun Maker

    Reviving a lawsuit by the families of Sandy Hook victims, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 Thursday that federal law does not pre-empt claims over the marketing of the Bushmaster assault rifle used in the 2012 elementary school massacre.

    Though the court refused to strike arguments regarding the marketing and advertising of the XM15-E2S weapon, other claims against the manufacturer of the gun that killed 20 first graders and six educators in 264 seconds cannot go forward.

    “The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority. “Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations.”
    Click to expand...

    The ruling turns on the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) passed by Congress in 2005, a law that protects gun manufacturers from negligent-entrustment claims.

    “We further conclude that PLCAA does not bar the plaintiffs from proceeding on the single, limited theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by marketing the XM15- E2S to civilians for criminal purposes, and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre,” Palmer wrote.
    Click to expand...
    https://www.courthousenews.com/court-opens-door-for-sandy-hook-parents-to-sue-gun-maker/
     
    tallen702

    tallen702

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 3, 2012
    5,119
    In the boonies of MoCo
    ^^^^

    They're going to have to prove that manufacturers specifically marketed it to civies for criminal purposes for it to stand. It won't. I also foresee this stalling in federal appeals court if it's allowed to go that far.
     
    j_h_smith

    j_h_smith

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 28, 2007
    28,516
    This opens a huge precedence for liability lawsuits all over the country. When a manufacturer can be held accountable for the actions of any individual because they used the defendant's product, watch out for endless product liability lawsuits.

    This ruling will have to be struck down by the SCOTUS or this is going to get ugly.

    Maybe AOC is right. Wells Fargo should have to pay for oil spills in Alaska because they loaned the money for that project.

    What has this country devolved into???
     
    Racer Doug14

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,007
    Millers Maryland
    j_h_smith said:
    This opens a huge precedence for liability lawsuits all over the world. When a manufacturer can be held accountable for the actions of any individual because they used the defendant's product, watch out for endless product liability lawsuits.

    This ruling will have to be struck down by the SCOTUS or this is going to get ugly.

    Maybe AOC is right. Wells Fargo should have to pay for oil spills in Alaska because they loaned the money for that project.

    What has this country devolved into???
    Click to expand...

    In a liberal's eyes, the criminal is never to blame. Someone else made them do it.
     
    R

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    tallen702 said:
    ^^^^

    They're going to have to prove that manufacturers specifically marketed it to civies for criminal purposes for it to stand. It won't. I also foresee this stalling in federal appeals court if it's allowed to go that far.
    Click to expand...

    They do not have to prove much at all. What they have a strategy, that may well work is adding risk to gun makers, and have ones that make AR and other than AR to drop AR to civilian business, and to take AR only makers out of business.


    In the bigger picture it does not matter much if they win this one. just as gun control lobby has spent about $3 for every $1 they deny the NRA, and that worked and is still worthwhile to them; in the case of lawsuits they primary want to open as many as possible.

    the win for the gun controllers on the lawsuits can be any one of the following:
    a) death of a thousand cuts from thousands of lawsuits that are costly to defend
    b) a possible gigantic payday of >$1,000,000,000 win
    c) public relations wins from say forcing gun makers to open up and provide all memos, emails, and internal discussions as to marketing etc. There could be internal memos that could be spun to make Remington look like Satan

    Let's keep in mind the gun control lobby can spend upwards of $1000 million a year on suits -- all paid for by the taxpayer since the are por bono charity of the huge law firms to the gun control "charities" -- fully tax deductable.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/business/dealbook/gun-control-big-law-firms.html
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/a-pro-bono-dream-team-takes-on-the-nra.html
     
    Occam

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,410
    Montgomery County
    This SHOULD be a no-brainer. The suit in question is pretty much the very definition of what that 2005 law was written to prevent. The Remington/Bushmaster marketing - even if we stipulate that it should be contemplated in this case (which I think is nonsense) - doesn't apply. The killer wasn't their customer! He killed someone and stole the gun in order to use it.
     
    shacklefordbanks

    shacklefordbanks

    Active Member
    Mar 27, 2013
    252
    Should be a no-brainer, but (no disrespect intended) when lawyers involved it gets "complicated."

    I'm not a lawyer, so I'm at liberty to paraphrase here...

    The tort lawyers (aka ambulance chasers) for the plaintiffs have gotten around The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act with the argument that under Connecticut law Bushmaster (i.e. Remington) was negligent for publishing some macho ads for their AR-15 touting them to be big assed killing machines (aka weeapons of war) that should never have been sold to the public because they knew or should have known that some bed-wetting lunatic who most likely jerked off to Bushmaster ads rather than Playboy centerfolds would murder his mother and steal it from her to go out and murder a bunch of little kids.

    And the learned honorable judges on the Connecticut Supreme Court bought this crap.
     
    danb

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    It should be a no brainer, but it's a game. The Supreme court only takes 80 of 7000 petitions. they don't take a case simply because it's wrongly decided. Lower court is gambling that they won't be overturned because it's not important enough for the Supreme Court to review
     
    j_h_smith

    j_h_smith

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 28, 2007
    28,516
    danb said:
    It should be a no brainer, but it's a game. The Supreme court only takes 80 of 7000 petitions. they don't take a case simply because it's wrongly decided. Lower court is gambling that they won't be overturned because it's not important enough for the Supreme Court to review
    Click to expand...

    Bingo. No Brainer.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    USTASC banner ad - training

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,503
    Messages
    7,284,289
    Members
    33,471
    Latest member
    Ababe1120

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom