National Gun Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

· "You talkin to me?"
Joined
·
4,439 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-lets-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gunmaker-proceed

In an order released Tuesday, the Supreme Court allowed families of Sandy Hook victims to proceed with a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms despite the company's claims that it was protected from liability by federal law.Remington had petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse a March 2019 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court, which ruled 4-3 that Remington could be sued under state law over its marketing practices, citing one of the few exemptions to the federal law.The gunmaker argued that the state court's interpretation of the marketing exemption is, "intolerable given Congress's 'intention to create national uniformity'" with the federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. "As the dissenters below noted, lawsuits like this one are precisely the kind the PLCAA was enacted to prevent."

Gunman Adam Lanza opened fire at the Newtown, Conn., school with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle on Dec. 14, 2012, killing 20 first-graders and six educators. The 20-year-old gunman earlier shot his mother to death at their Newtown home, and killed himself as police arrived at the school. The rifle was legally owned by his mother.
A survivor and relatives of nine victims filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public and alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.Tuesday's order from the Supreme Court does not mean Remington or other gun manufacturers will face any immediate liability, but it does set the stage for potential court battles over whether or not the gun industry is responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and potentially open the door to other suits in relation to other mass shootings or murders."The decision will have immediate and severe consequences, exposing the firearms industry to costly and burdensome litigation," Remington argued in its petition to the Supreme Court. "Thus, as a leading scholar on firearm-manufacturer liability has explained, the decision below will 'unleash a flood of lawsuits across the country,'" it continued, citing Timothy D. Lytton, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.

Joshua Kosoff, a lawyer for the families' victims, applauded the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year when Remington made its plea to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a newly refreshed conservative majority but refused to side with the gun industry Tuesday.
“Our state’s highest court has already ruled that the families deserve their day in court and we are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will defer to that well-reasoned opinion,” Koskoff said in a statement.The high court's denial of Remington's petition also does not mean it will be the tribunal's last word on the issue, as it often allows controversial issues to percolate in lower courts for years before weighing in. The Remington case could also make its way back to the Supreme Court on other grounds.The case will now proceed in a lower state court.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,693 Posts


> "In an order released Tuesday, the Supreme Court allowed families of Sandy Hook victims to proceed with a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms"

> "Tuesday's order from the Supreme Court does not mean Remington or other gun manufacturers will face any immediate liability,
but
it does set the stage for potential court battles over whether or not the gun industry is responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and potentially open the door to other suits in relation to other mass shootings or murders."

[SUB][/SUB]
What the #*%%
 

· Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
The Supreme Court fails to due it's job yet again. Such a worthless collection of judges. They all need to go. From what I understand of this case, they had to reframe it to keep it going. Apparently the main complaint now is that Remington violated state or federal advertising laws promoting the firearm as an effective way to kill people. You think promoting it for any other purpose makes it non-lethal to humans?? Guns kill, that's their purpose! You can get an Olympic marksman rifle decked out for competition, that bullet is still going through a person if you fire it at someone! The people of this country have become so stupid and so pathetic it is physically painful to even know of their existence.
 

· Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
33,112 Posts
Patiently waiting for the Grim Reaper to visit Ruth Vader Ginsberg. :popcorn2:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,556 Posts
So what happened to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
SCOTUS decision in this matter is not a ruling on the applicability of the PLCAA. It was a ruling against a specific argument about its application vs CT state law. Since I don't know enough about the PLCAA and the CT state law in question, I don't know whether Remington 's lawyers were making a stretch, or SCOTUS was being unduly narrow.

It will be difficult to prove that Remington's marketing practices induced a medicated teen who was a prohibited person to kill his mother, steal her firearm, and commit multiple murders. It's possible that the majority of the Court would like to see that decided on in a lower court where they will then have another bite at the apple.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,556 Posts
SCOTUS decision in this matter is not a ruling on the applicability of the PLCAA. It was a ruling against a specific argument about its application vs CT state law. Since I don't know enough about the PLCAA and the CT state law in question, I don't know whether Remington 's lawyers were making a stretch, or SCOTUS was being unduly narrow.

It will be difficult to prove that Remington's marketing practices induced a medicated teen who was a prohibited person to kill his mother, steal her firearm, and commit multiple murders. It's possible that the majority of the Court would like to see that decided on in a lower court where they will then have another bite at the apple.



Wouldn't the lawsuit hold a little more merit IF adam lanza bought the gun. I believe they are saying they marketed the guns to young males but the gun in question was bought by a middle aged woman,
 
  • Like
Reactions: LRDGCO

· Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Wouldn't the lawsuit hold a little more merit IF adam lanza bought the gun. I believe they are saying they marketed the guns to young males but the gun in question was bought by a middle aged woman,
Yes. While the plaintiff attorneys will argue that Lanza was obsessed with the Bushmaster AR15 because of Remington's vast as campaign, the fact that he was a prohibited person who took possession through murder will certainly cast doubt on the claim. But a civil suit will place a lower burden in that regard. I think that the plaintiffs can swing a jury on Remington advertising influencing Lanza's choice of weapon, but how do they translate that into cause of mass murder?
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,179 Posts
Worth noting that SCOTUS didn't actually make any ruling in this case. Which, of course, allows the case to go to trial in the lower courts.

--Wag--
 
  • Like
Reactions: Popeye

· Registered
Joined
·
4,756 Posts
The aim of the suit is not to win, they know they won't win due to the fact of the case, the aim is to sue the manufactures and force then to expend a lot of $$$$ to defend themselves which could make the manufactures go broke and go out of business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wag

· Registered
Joined
·
17,556 Posts
What about the ad agency that came up with the ad, do they get sued?

Every victim who has been shot in a gun free zone should sue the company that makes those signs and the people who put them up. Clearly it's false advertising.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top