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.

Amen and Amen I have a gun and it is always loaded and it has sat on the table both upstairs and down and has yet to jump off of the table and go on a k*****g spree. I should take it apart one of these weekends and clean it again so it don't get rusted or anything but it is not a k*****g machine and none of my guns are unless they are doing so and not telling me that they are doing this. Anybody that thinks Remington is responsible should also consider suing all three of the automobile industries in America and also sue those in other countries for all of the people k**led in auto accidents which are far more than Sandy Hook School Shooting ever thought of being.

I'm never lonely! I have my dog, my gun, and the rasp that I use to smooth out the callouses on my knuckles! My wife cut her hair short so I can't d**g her around with me anymore, but that's Ok, she was always kind grumpy when I took her places before.

This is r****ded! Like I asked Woodguru the other day. If someone is k**led by a drunk driver, should the family be able to sue Ford, Jack Daniels, the liquor distributor, and the store that sold it? After all, they all took part in selling a product to a drunk driver.

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.

I'm never lonely! I have my dog, my gun, and the rasp that I use to smooth out the callouses on my knuckles! My wife cut her hair short so I can't d**g her around with me anymore, but that's Ok, she was always kind grumpy when I took her places before.

This is r****ded! Like I asked Woodguru the other day. If someone is k**led by a drunk driver, should the family be able to sue Ford, Jack Daniels, the liquor distributor, and the store that sold it? After all, they all took part in selling a product to a drunk driver.