Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Supreme Court decision.

  1. #1
    Team Savage
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    vero beach fl. / driftwood pa.
    Age
    69
    Posts
    2,834

    Supreme Court decision.

    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?

  2. #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    NW North Carolina
    Age
    63
    Posts
    9
    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.

  3. #3
    Basic Member Robinhood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bayou Country
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,206
    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.
    One Cannot Be PC And Be Intellectually Honest!

  4. #4
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    69
    Posts
    159
    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.

  5. #5
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Age
    37
    Posts
    294
    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.

  6. #6
    Team Savage
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    48
    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.

  7. #7
    Basic Member Robinhood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bayou Country
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,206
    Remington, move to Texas.
    One Cannot Be PC And Be Intellectually Honest!

  8. #8
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    30
    Based on everything I have read, the actual issue in the case was Remington's marketing of the firearm, and Remington attempted to have a motion to dismiss or an injunction issued, which it won initially but ultimately lost at first level appeal and continued to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, but simply declined to hear it at all. At its core, this is no different than the hundreds of deceptive advertising suits that happen each year.

    What makes this case somewhat unique is the tie in to the Sandy Hook shooting, which I am sure was done to maximize publicity, spur anti-gun sentiment, and potentially motivate the jury should this go to trial. As most people know about jury trials, if your case is not a slam dunk, or you want an huge windfall verdict, you try to get sympathy from the jury.

    At a minimum, even if Remington wins, they will lose. The biggest victory for the anti-gun crowd will be the depositions and discovery process, where a ton of "dirty industry secrets" can and will come out. All of these will be used to push for more gun control and vilify the gun manufacturers and industry. If there are any "smoking guns", watch out as even pro-gun members of congress will feel something will have to be done.

    In my opinion, the problem for Remington (and the industry in general) is that gun advertising has used military, "solder of fortune", and video game style themes for a long time, and most people who are not gun enthusiasts will look at that as an issue. I suspect there is tons of discover-able meetings, discussions, market surveys, and so forth that show deliberate efforts to push that type of mentality in gun sales. In this case, the gun manufacturers and the gun industry are ultimately victims of their own actions in that they should have realized years ago that the push for gun control was not going to go away and they needed to operate as cleanly as possible.

    As to justpassinthrough's comments about where the future of AR15's are ultimately headed, the anti-gun crowd first has to deal with the very real issue that, under the federal definition of firearm, the AR15 is not a firearm (and I suspect the Sig modular pistol isn't either). There has been a recent federal case and resulting articles pointing this out. I would expect any real attempt to push for an "assault weapons ban" will face a serious challenge unless they first fix this legal issue.

  9. #9
    Team Savage
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    vero beach fl. / driftwood pa.
    Age
    69
    Posts
    2,834
    I wouldn’t want to be the defense attorney arguing that the AR15 isn’t (technically) a firearm, especially in the Sandy Hook case.
    Nor would i want to be defending wether or not bump stocks allowed a weapon to be fired as if it were full auto.
    Remington has a history of having the right people to develope good products, and the wrong people for marketing.
    I personally cant see how they survive this. Who is there they can expect much help from other than the NRA?
    And the NRA is having it’s own problems.
    The amount of money available to the left is actually limitless.

  10. #10
    Team Savage
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    1,475
    From the reading I've done, the basis for the court's decision was not the lethality of the weapon, but rather the marketing of it as a civilian weapon of war. I remember seeing one ad where they said "man card reissued", but I haven't been able to find them since.

    So there's not a product liability issue, it's about a violation of law regarding advertising. States are allowed to legislate controls on how products are advertised. You can't, for instance, create an advertisement that says "buy this gun and make those school yard bullies beg for their lives".

    Some see this as a end run around federal protections provided to arms manufactures, and should plaintiffs prevail, media will surely paint this as a win against the NRA and gun manufacturers. I suspect Remington will settle before trial. In this case, the shooter took the gun and killed his mom before going to the school. How do you prove what was in a dead moms's mind when she bought the firearm?
    Long distance shooters are a different breed, and I would never want to piss off someone who can "pick you off" from another zip code.

Similar Threads

  1. Went to Court today
    By Stockrex in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 06:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •