The Supreme Court of the U S has stood by the decision of the State Supreme Court in allowing the parents of the Sandy Hook school shooting to proceed with their lawsuit against Remington Arms, maker of the rifle involved in the shooting.
So what will be the outcome for Remington who is already having financial problems?
And beyond that what will be the outcome as for the private ownership of AR15 type rifles?
I tried to find how each one voted but was unable to.
I think we all know what the outcome of private ownership of AR15's will be eventually, and it might not be very long.
If this holds up, Remington is sued and loses, Imagine all of the car manufacturers that will get drawn into accident responsibility law suits. They manufactured the car. They must be responsible for the deaths.
If it goes to a Leftist court who knows but if it goes to a fair court and the plaintiffs lose, that would set a precedent on guns not being accountable for murder.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well.
Product liability is related to defective products. The rifles were not defective. The manufacturer cannot possibly exercise control over the use of the rifle. This rifle was not sold via an illegal transaction. The purchaser allegedly did not secure the rifle, and someone not qualified to possess a rifle got hold of it. I'm at a loss to understand why Remington can be sued in this case. The courts apparently don't use the same logic that I use. How can this dichotomy between disparate foundations of logic be reconciled? In the old days - before the 50's and 60's - the laws we live by were founded upon Divine Law (such as the 10 Commandments) and Natural Law (basically, if something leads to damage, death, destruction, etc., human action should avoid such a thing). Human law was held to a litmus test which required laws written by legislatures to conform to Divine Law and Natural Law. The most recent book dealing with Natural Law was written by Heinrich Rommen in 1936 (English version in 1947), and is titled The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy. In a nutshell, it is my opinion that we are in a legal, philosophical, and moral free-fall, akin to jumping off a cliff. We'll need to sprout some wings to get out of this predicament.
I think I remember reading somewhere that there basis was something along the lines of they should have not been selling these guns to the public in the first place, and therefore are responsible when they are misused. Or some crazy stupid version of that.
If this goes through it is going to be very bad.
One way to stop this is to flood the system with other similar frivolous lawsuits. Stuff like someone suing a car company for getting a speeding ticket, because they should not have made a car that can go faster than the speed limit. Or suing a car company because a drunk driver drove the car and got in a wreak and killed someone. The company should not have made a car that a drunk driver can drive, it should have a built in breathalizer.
What I read was that SCOTUS declined to consider the appeal, which let the last ruling in the case stand and returned the original lawsuit to the lower courts to be heard. The original argument was over whether the case could even go to trial (which has not yet done) and whether the 2005 federal law that ostensibly prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers for how third parties use those firearms barred the suit on its grounds at the state level that Remington's marketing practices in Connecticut were non-compliant/deceptive and therefore encouraged illegal use of the gun.
It's a novel approach ("novel" in the scientific sense of "new" - I am not passing judgment) and worthy of attention by all sides. I can see this trial resulting in a decision against Remington at the jury level, then to be appealed right back up through the courts where SCOTUS may very well have to weigh in because of the interstate commerce connection.
If it succeeds, you can expect states to consider using any similar "truth in advertising" types of laws against gun manufacturers for specific awful events. I also predict that gun manufacturers will drop ads that are "soldier of fortune" and video-game inspired back to ones extolling the responsible side of the guns - which is how it should be regardless. The VAST, VAST majority of guns privately owned in this country are in the hands of lawful, responsible people. Most normal mentally healthy adults don't look at a gun maker's ad and say, "Hey, why didn't I think to use this in assaults of innocents?" The unhealthy cretins of the world already know where to get what they want and how to use it to harm innocents. In this case, the killer is dead and nobody can prove that he was tipped over the edge, much less inspired to violence, by Remington's marketing. I have yet to see a gun ad suggesting its best use is mass-murder.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks