One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Gun Did It: Court Says Sandy Hook Parents Can Sue Remington
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Mar 18, 2019 19:47:05   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Home


BREAKING NEWS
The Gun Did It: Court Says Sandy Hook Parents Can Sue Remington




In a ruling that would appear to not only violate common sense but congressional law, the Connecticut Supreme Court said Thursday that the victims and families of the Sandy Hook school shooting can move forward with a lawsuit against Remington, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to carry out the massacre. Experts predict that the case will now go before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeing as how the Second Amendment and The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act both hang in the balance of this decision.

Not to mention the fact that, um, this kind of liability could literally end U.S. gun manufacturing and sales overnight.

From the New York Times:

In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Lawyers for the families argued that those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and k**led 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire.

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

It’s hard to see how Remington could be held liable for “wrongful marketing” unless they were specifically advertising a weapon that could feasibly be used to shoot up a kindergarten. Or making some kind of “Hey, weirdo, this gun is perfect for taking your revenge out on an unloving and h**eful world!” We’re pretty sure Remington did not engage in marketing of that sort, and so it is ridiculous to claim that they bear any responsibility whatsoever for what Lanza did on that fateful day in 2012.

It is impossible not to feel ongoing sympathy for the families who survived this terrible tragedy, and we don’t even have any particular ill will towards them for trying to seek redress wherever they can find it. Tragedy and logic rarely go hand in hand.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this sort of liability is outlandish, nonsensical, and in direct conflict with the Second Amendment. Not to mention, it opens the door wide open for manufacturers of knives, cars, pressure cookers, and any number of products to be sued for liability. Let’s hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, because it opens up a can of worms that could literally devastate American industry, to say nothing of our rights.

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 20:18:17   #
Liberty Tree
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Home


BREAKING NEWS
The Gun Did It: Court Says Sandy Hook Parents Can Sue Remington




In a ruling that would appear to not only violate common sense but congressional law, the Connecticut Supreme Court said Thursday that the victims and families of the Sandy Hook school shooting can move forward with a lawsuit against Remington, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to carry out the massacre. Experts predict that the case will now go before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeing as how the Second Amendment and The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act both hang in the balance of this decision.

Not to mention the fact that, um, this kind of liability could literally end U.S. gun manufacturing and sales overnight.

From the New York Times:

In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Lawyers for the families argued that those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and k**led 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire.

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

It’s hard to see how Remington could be held liable for “wrongful marketing” unless they were specifically advertising a weapon that could feasibly be used to shoot up a kindergarten. Or making some kind of “Hey, weirdo, this gun is perfect for taking your revenge out on an unloving and h**eful world!” We’re pretty sure Remington did not engage in marketing of that sort, and so it is ridiculous to claim that they bear any responsibility whatsoever for what Lanza did on that fateful day in 2012.

It is impossible not to feel ongoing sympathy for the families who survived this terrible tragedy, and we don’t even have any particular ill will towards them for trying to seek redress wherever they can find it. Tragedy and logic rarely go hand in hand.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this sort of liability is outlandish, nonsensical, and in direct conflict with the Second Amendment. Not to mention, it opens the door wide open for manufacturers of knives, cars, pressure cookers, and any number of products to be sued for liability. Let’s hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, because it opens up a can of worms that could literally devastate American industry, to say nothing of our rights.
Home br br br BREAKING NEWS br The Gun Did It... (show quote)


We all mourn the tragedy, but a business should not be held libel for advertising a legally manufactured, legally sold product because someone misuses it.

Reply
Mar 18, 2019 20:18:43   #
peter11937 Loc: NYS
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Home


BREAKING NEWS
The Gun Did It: Court Says Sandy Hook Parents Can Sue Remington




In a ruling that would appear to not only violate common sense but congressional law, the Connecticut Supreme Court said Thursday that the victims and families of the Sandy Hook school shooting can move forward with a lawsuit against Remington, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to carry out the massacre. Experts predict that the case will now go before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeing as how the Second Amendment and The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act both hang in the balance of this decision.

Not to mention the fact that, um, this kind of liability could literally end U.S. gun manufacturing and sales overnight.

From the New York Times:

In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Lawyers for the families argued that those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and k**led 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire.

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

It’s hard to see how Remington could be held liable for “wrongful marketing” unless they were specifically advertising a weapon that could feasibly be used to shoot up a kindergarten. Or making some kind of “Hey, weirdo, this gun is perfect for taking your revenge out on an unloving and h**eful world!” We’re pretty sure Remington did not engage in marketing of that sort, and so it is ridiculous to claim that they bear any responsibility whatsoever for what Lanza did on that fateful day in 2012.

It is impossible not to feel ongoing sympathy for the families who survived this terrible tragedy, and we don’t even have any particular ill will towards them for trying to seek redress wherever they can find it. Tragedy and logic rarely go hand in hand.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this sort of liability is outlandish, nonsensical, and in direct conflict with the Second Amendment. Not to mention, it opens the door wide open for manufacturers of knives, cars, pressure cookers, and any number of products to be sued for liability. Let’s hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, because it opens up a can of worms that could literally devastate American industry, to say nothing of our rights.
Home br br br BREAKING NEWS br The Gun Did It... (show quote)


`SCOTUS almost certainly find against this decision.

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2019 20:39:02   #
Kevyn
 
The suit is contending that a reasonable person would expect that marketing a firearm in the manner Remington marketed the Bushmaster would appeal to someone like the Sandy Hook shooter.
Here are the Bushmaster ads alongside a firearm ad most of us would have seen in field and stream in the 60s. At one point surplus military rifles were sportsterized to make them appear more like sporting firearms. Now firearms are marketed as “mission ready” combat weapons. And all too often the marketing works.
no propaganda please wrote:
Home


BREAKING NEWS
The Gun Did It: Court Says Sandy Hook Parents Can Sue Remington




In a ruling that would appear to not only violate common sense but congressional law, the Connecticut Supreme Court said Thursday that the victims and families of the Sandy Hook school shooting can move forward with a lawsuit against Remington, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to carry out the massacre. Experts predict that the case will now go before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeing as how the Second Amendment and The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act both hang in the balance of this decision.

Not to mention the fact that, um, this kind of liability could literally end U.S. gun manufacturing and sales overnight.

From the New York Times:

In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Lawyers for the families argued that those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and k**led 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire.

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

It’s hard to see how Remington could be held liable for “wrongful marketing” unless they were specifically advertising a weapon that could feasibly be used to shoot up a kindergarten. Or making some kind of “Hey, weirdo, this gun is perfect for taking your revenge out on an unloving and h**eful world!” We’re pretty sure Remington did not engage in marketing of that sort, and so it is ridiculous to claim that they bear any responsibility whatsoever for what Lanza did on that fateful day in 2012.

It is impossible not to feel ongoing sympathy for the families who survived this terrible tragedy, and we don’t even have any particular ill will towards them for trying to seek redress wherever they can find it. Tragedy and logic rarely go hand in hand.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this sort of liability is outlandish, nonsensical, and in direct conflict with the Second Amendment. Not to mention, it opens the door wide open for manufacturers of knives, cars, pressure cookers, and any number of products to be sued for liability. Let’s hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, because it opens up a can of worms that could literally devastate American industry, to say nothing of our rights.
Home br br br BREAKING NEWS br The Gun Did It... (show quote)







Reply
Mar 18, 2019 21:29:19   #
karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!
 
Ammo Manufacturer

Reply
Mar 19, 2019 01:47:21   #
PeterS
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Home


BREAKING NEWS
The Gun Did It: Court Says Sandy Hook Parents Can Sue Remington




In a ruling that would appear to not only violate common sense but congressional law, the Connecticut Supreme Court said Thursday that the victims and families of the Sandy Hook school shooting can move forward with a lawsuit against Remington, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to carry out the massacre. Experts predict that the case will now go before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeing as how the Second Amendment and The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act both hang in the balance of this decision.

Not to mention the fact that, um, this kind of liability could literally end U.S. gun manufacturing and sales overnight.

From the New York Times:

In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Lawyers for the families argued that those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and k**led 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire.

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

It’s hard to see how Remington could be held liable for “wrongful marketing” unless they were specifically advertising a weapon that could feasibly be used to shoot up a kindergarten. Or making some kind of “Hey, weirdo, this gun is perfect for taking your revenge out on an unloving and h**eful world!” We’re pretty sure Remington did not engage in marketing of that sort, and so it is ridiculous to claim that they bear any responsibility whatsoever for what Lanza did on that fateful day in 2012.

It is impossible not to feel ongoing sympathy for the families who survived this terrible tragedy, and we don’t even have any particular ill will towards them for trying to seek redress wherever they can find it. Tragedy and logic rarely go hand in hand.

But that doesn’t change the fact that this sort of liability is outlandish, nonsensical, and in direct conflict with the Second Amendment. Not to mention, it opens the door wide open for manufacturers of knives, cars, pressure cookers, and any number of products to be sued for liability. Let’s hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, because it opens up a can of worms that could literally devastate American industry, to say nothing of our rights.
Home br br br BREAKING NEWS br The Gun Did It... (show quote)

Good, let hope it puts them out of business...and the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms--it says not a single word about their manufacture...

As for the manufacture of knives--as soon as 24 first graders are slaughtered with one then you can include them too...

Reply
Mar 19, 2019 01:53:05   #
PeterS
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
We all mourn the tragedy, but a business should not be held libel for advertising a legally manufactured, legally sold product because someone misuses it.

It is a military style weapon used for the purpose it was manufactured...

Reply
 
 
Mar 19, 2019 02:58:23   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PeterS wrote:
It is a military style weapon used for the purpose it was manufactured...
It looks like a military weapon, but it is not a military weapon. The AR15 looks like the M16, but it doesn't function like one. The first company to manufacture a semi-auto M16 look-a-like for sale to citizens was Colt. The first ones released for sale were designated Colt AR15 Sporter. Colt did not advertise the AR15 as a military weapon, an assault rifle, or any other sort of man k**ler. Colt did not put pictures of the AR15 on billboards that said, "Hey, all you nutjobs out there who wanna k**l some people, here's the gun for all your fun."

The AR15 has a solid reputation as an outstanding semi-auto sporting rifles. The AR15 is accurate, reliable, versatile, easy to maintain and repair. The AR15 is an excellent target rifle, variations of it are used by competitors from amateur to world class. It is a great range and varmint rifle and definitely a fine self-defense weapon.

Regarding the AR15 as a self-defense weapon: Considering the semi-auto and full auto weaponry showing up in our streets in the hands of gangs and other criminals, a defender with an AR15 loaded with 30 rounds has a fighting chance. With a revolver or a bolt action rifle, unless a defender is combat trained and a highly proficient tactical reloader, he is most likely fkd.

Reply
Mar 19, 2019 02:59:38   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PeterS wrote:
Good, let hope it puts them out of business...and the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms--it says not a single word about their manufacture...
It doesn't say anything about muskets either.

Reply
Mar 19, 2019 05:40:57   #
karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!
 
Not To Mention
The Stock In Line With The Chamber
Is More Easily Controlled
Than The Monte Carlo Style Stock

Reply
Mar 19, 2019 06:49:44   #
Rose42
 
PeterS wrote:
Good, let hope it puts them out of business...and the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms--it says not a single word about their manufacture...

As for the manufacture of knives--as soon as 24 first graders are slaughtered with one then you can include them too...


Thats ridiculous. By your reasoning car manufacturers and alcohol companies should also be put out of business for false advertising.

There have been numerous multiple mass stabbings in schools in other countries. Easy to find with a search.

This is a money grab by lawyers who are capitalizing on this tragedy. Shame on them.

Reply
 
 
Mar 19, 2019 07:05:49   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Rose42 wrote:
Thats ridiculous. By your reasoning car manufacturers and alcohol companies should also be put out of business for false advertising.

There have been numerous multiple mass stabbings in schools in other countries. Easy to find with a search.

This is a money grab by lawyers who are capitalizing on this tragedy. Shame on them.


China has seen a number of school attacks with knives... And their schools are fenced and guarded...
Not to mention the Kunming machete attack...

And contrary to popular belief, there are criminals with guns in China... There have been two gun attacks in my province that I have heard of... One in my city... A bank robbery gone bad...

Unless the company advertised for school shooting, they share in none of the blame...

Did anyone blame the car manufacturer when the maniac in London started running people down?

Reply
Mar 19, 2019 08:20:15   #
The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
China has seen a number of school attacks with knives... And their schools are fenced and guarded...
Not to mention the Kunming machete attack...

And contrary to popular belief, there are criminals with guns in China... There have been two gun attacks in my province that I have heard of... One in my city... A bank robbery gone bad...

Unless the company advertised for school shooting, they share in none of the blame...

Did anyone blame the car manufacturer when the maniac in London started running people down?
China has seen a number of school attacks with kni... (show quote)

No, they didn’t, it doesn’t fit the narrative that folks like PeterS push. And the MSM doesn’t like to share studies that show that more people use a gun in self defense each year than die in car accidents, it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Reply
Mar 19, 2019 08:29:07   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
The Critical Critic wrote:
No, they didn’t, it doesn’t fit the narrative that folks like PeterS push. And the MSM doesn’t like to share studies that show that more people use a gun in self defense each year than die in car accidents, it doesn’t fit the narrative.


Morning CC...

Sounds illogical doesn't it...
But the desire to blame an inanimate object for the actions of an individual are fairly common...
Wasn't so long ago the Neanderthals were advocating for club confiscation... We sorted them out

Reply
Mar 19, 2019 08:53:22   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
Let’s sue the drug companies that exacerbated the situation! And the shrinks that push the drugs!! Hold the liable!

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.