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

[Matlack]

Originally Posted by PJDiesel

Not good.

I've been a lifelong fan of Remington, have owned and currently own them.

Slippery slope if you ask me.

IANAL.

This is full on off the cliff

[Gordon]

This is a hot mess

[DAMUE]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by randomuser

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]

Originally Posted by DAMUE

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.

Originally Posted by randomuser

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]

For those that have not read the lawsuit, or the CT state opinion, this is an important note:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme...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]

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]

Originally Posted by DAMUE

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]

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.