Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

SCOTUS denies gunmaker petition, allows Sandy Hook families to sue Remington over massacre

In an order issued Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court denied Remington Arms' petition for the court to decide whether or not the gun manufacturer could be sued by the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut, thereby allowing the lawsuit to continue through the lower courts for now.

The case of Remington Arms v. Soto deals with whether Remington — which manufactured the modern sporting rifle used in the massacre — can be held liable in the matter because of how it advertised the gun.

While Congress passed a federal law in 2005 to shield gunmakers from liability when their products are used for criminal acts by third parties, the plaintiffs in the case claim that the advertising strategy violated Connecticut law governing fair trade practices by supposedly encouraging illegal use by associating it with the military.

"The Bushmaster Defendants' militaristic marketing reinforces the image of the AR-15 as a combat weapon used for the purpose of waging war and k*****g human beings," the initial complaint said.

Basically, the argument here is that because of how the gun company portrayed the gun in its advertising, the k**ler was more inclined to steal that firearm from his mother in order to commit the atrocity.

In a 4-3 decision, Connecticut's Supreme Court held that the company's marketing was an unfair trade practice and remanded the case back to the lower courts for adjudication.

Independence Institute research director David Kopel, who joined in an amicus brief on the case, said that the Connecticut ruling is a problem for both the First and Second Amendments. "The notion that it is illegal for firearms advertisers to use 'militaristic' themes is absurd," Kopel writes:

The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms has always had a relationship to military use of arms. For example, the first clause of the Second Amendment is about "a well regulated m*****a." Colonial assemblies, early state legislatures, and Congress in 1792 mandated that American citizens possess firearms and edged weapons. The federal and state arms mandates were not enacted by legislatures insistent that everyone go duckhunting. They were enacted so that the population would have combat weapons. If guns were not useful for interpersonal fighting, they would not be "arms," and would not be protected by the Second Amendment.

Tuesday's order rejecting the appeal is part of a long list of rejected cases, and the high court provided no explanation for why it didn't take the matter up. But the rejection doesn't mean that this fight is anywhere near over.

Last month, University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias told the Daily Caller that the petition may have been brought to the Supreme Court too soon in the legal process.

"The Connecticut Supreme Court decision is far from a final judgment," Tobias explained. "The case will return to the lower court for discovery and a jury trial, unless the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear it. The justices seem unlikely to hear it until the case has moved more fully through the state court system — that could consume several years."
https://www.theblaze.com/news/scotus-denies-gunmaker-petition-allows-sandy-hook-families-to-sue-remington-over-massacre?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20191112Trending-SCOTUSRemingtonSandyHook&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News
***************************************************************************
So if someone is k**led with an "Old Timer" pocket knife that I've had for 15 years ---"Old Timer" can be sued???
Just how F**ed is that??

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

Only if it is advertised as a military style weapon? I don't really know .Anyone?

Seth

People can sue other people and businesses over most things anyway. All this means is that people can take the gun manufacturers to court, but winning is another thing entirely.

My real misgiving here is how such lawsuits will play out in hard left states or in front of anti-Second Amendment activist judges.

2bltap Loc: Move to the Mainland

I suppose that the Automobile industry Wil be able to be sued because of someone driving under the influence or without a valid Driver's license right? Or perhaps ant company that manufactures hammers or ice picks or wrenches or baseball bat's or hell just about anything that could possibly be used as a weapon RIGHT? OF COURSE I'M NO LAWYER BUT IF THIS DECISION WAS MADE BY THE SCOTUS AS I'M UNDERSTANDING THAN THIS WAS ONE OF THEIR MOST STUPID DECISIONS EVER MADE! GOOD LORD ALMIGHTY please send these individuals back to working at Walmart as greeters.
Semper Fi
Mike

PeterS

"Modern sporting rifle!" What kind of sport is it to slaughter 25 first graders? It's this kind of head in the sand mentality that is going to cause all "sporting rifles" to be banned...even actual sporting rifles.

Seth

The tangos in Boston used IEDs made from pressure cookers. The 9/11 tangos used airplanes, which they hijacked using utility knives (not box cutters as is public domain). Timothy McVeigh used then non-government controlled Ammonium Nitrate (a chemical fertilizer) mixed with nitro methane. Wannabe jihadis in England use knives or stage acid attacks.

Should the manufacturers of all the above items also be subject to lawsuits?

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

You are using logic and reason, rather than emotion in your argument. Good for you!

Seth

Don't be too quick to compliment me, this stuff just happens to fall into the knowledge base of my profession, prior to my retirement. 😁

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

Only in the eyes of stupid liberal judges

Seth

Unfortunately, there is a surplus of those. Just look at all the career criminals running loose on the streets of certain major cities and the frivolous law suits that succeed in their courtrooms.

Abel

How about Snap-On Tools, they make a hell of a breaker bar that will k**l people? Ford and Chevrolet, they make cars and trucks that can k**l people? Hospitals, people die there? WTF are these i***ts thinking?

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Not as "sporting" as it is to slaughter 60 million unborn children. Right Sport? Shall we ban sex?

PeterS

All of the above were regulated to the point repeat murder is much more difficult and no one from the right stood up to protest. People will always be inventive when they find ways to murder but why hand it to them on a platter. Look at the Las Vegas shooter--the deaths there could have easily climbed into the hundreds. Why are we gift wrapping a psychotics ability to fulfill their very warped dreams?

My point is that it's the conservatives pretense that guns designed to mimick military weapons aren't what they appear to be but "sporting" rifles which is an insult to all those who have been murdered and maimed by them. It's this head in the sand mentality about the weapons they so love that is going to cause them and all sporting rifles to be banned. If we can regulate fertilizer to the point that it isn't feasible to use in bombs then we can regulate military-style weapons to the point they can't be used to commit mass murder. If it means banning the weapon then so be it else you grandpa's 22 semi that he taught you to shoot squirrels with runs the risk of being taken away with all other semi-automatic weapons.

I grew up in New Mexico and there were few weekends that we weren't out hunting something. Guns are a way of life for a lot of people and a great way for parent and child to bond with each other. There is much to be protected that responsible gun owners are about to lose all over the love of one style of weapon. If you think it's worth it so be it. If you think it's worth going to war over so be it. The weapons days are numbered simply because a democratic society finds them more a danger than a benefit...

Rose42

I don’t think you realize the sheer dishonesty of your post. Or perhaps you do and just don’t care.