Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-01-2019, 7:59 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Remington Appeals to SCOTUS (Remington vs Soto et al); cert denied 11-12-19

Gunmaker Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sandy Hook Appeal

Quote:
The maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a Connecticut court ruling that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the company.
The article includes a .pdf copy of the appeal.

Here's a direct link to the .pdf of the appeal.

Quote:
The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
If you need to catch up, here's a summary of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision by fiddletown.

Links to the documents filed in this case can now be found in Post #5 below.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-06-2019 at 2:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-02-2019, 8:02 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Even though the situation in Connecticut, that prompted the appeals court to allow the lawsuit to go forward, may not necessarily apply in other states, it would not make a favorable precedent if the suit succeeds in holding the manufacturer responsible.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-02-2019, 9:17 AM
Ross Ross is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Driving the 49th POTUS.
Posts: 1,119
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I wonder how many wrongful death suits Connecticut has filed and have been upheld against Dodge, Ford, Toyota, BMW, and other car manufacturers for the deaths caused by drunk drivers?
__________________


Got Zydrate?

Help, I'm having premonitions of future flashbacks.

"All Californians, like all citizens of the United States, have a fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear common and dangerous arms. The nation’s Founders used arms for self-protection, for the common defense, for hunting food, and as a check against tyranny." Judge Benitez - March 2019
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-02-2019, 1:16 PM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 631
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

An even better question: How many times has CT sued Ferrari, Lamborghini, Toyota, Ford, Dodge, or anyone else marketing insanely powerful sports cars and "drag racers"? Honestly, look at just Dodge. The Challenger Hellcat has 707Hp! Nobody NEEDS that much power? Look at their ads, always zooming around, acting like race car drivers on public streets.

How many have died in street racing accidents because of these overpowered Drag Racers? It is deceptive and unfair to market these passenger cars using race car imagery! They are deliberately setting up a Drag Racer image to sell these needlessly powerful cars! Won't someone think of the children!!!

/s
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-05-2019, 5:06 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A number of briefs were filed in the last couple of days related to this appeal.

A list with links to the documents for the case can be found... Here.

The AP reported on this, stating...

Quote:
Officials in the 10 conservative states, 22 House Republicans and the NRA are among groups that filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday. They urged justices to overturn the Connecticut decision, citing a much-debated 2005 federal law that shields gun-makers from liability, in most cases, when their products are used in crimes.
Other groups include NSSF, GOA, Professors of Second Amendment Law, CATO Institute, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, Independence Institute

Happy Reading.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-05-2019, 5:26 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,973
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I'm betting SCOTUS takes this case without addressing the 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-05-2019, 5:41 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,278
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I'm betting SCOTUS takes this case without addressing the 2A.
Simply because there is no need to.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-05-2019, 6:02 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,249
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I'm betting SCOTUS takes this case without addressing the 2A.
Correct, and it will be a summary judgement. It's a ridiculous case on the face of it. SCOTUS won't waste time.

Everyone involved in the lower judgement should be relieved of duty.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-05-2019, 7:40 PM
WWDHD? WWDHD? is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 1,831
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Correct, and it will be a summary judgement. It's a ridiculous case on the face of it. SCOTUS won't waste time.

Everyone involved in the lower judgement should be relieved of duty.
Truly- activist Judges making a statement.
__________________
NRA & CRPA member
semi-docile tax payer
amateur survivalist

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-06-2019, 7:23 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,417
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
I'm betting SCOTUS takes this case without addressing the 2A.
I'm betting they ignore this case like dozens of others stuck in the pipeline.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-07-2019, 3:03 PM
KatMan53's Avatar
KatMan53 KatMan53 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Even though the situation in Connecticut, that prompted the appeals court to allow the lawsuit to go forward, may not necessarily apply in other states, it would not make a favorable precedent if the suit succeeds in holding the manufacturer responsible.
If it plays out badly, firearms are going to get a lot more expensive on behalf of manufacturers.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-18-2019, 11:18 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

While we await new developments, I thought today's piece by The National Review, if nothing else, ended... interestingly.

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry

Quote:
...If the PLCAA doesn’t mean much, the Second Amendment itself won’t mean much, either... The Supreme Court needs to take this case — and then nuke it into oblivion.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-08-2019, 3:25 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A brief in opposition was filed by Soto on 10/4. Distilled down, the opposition argument boils down to two, basic premises...


This Court Lacks Jurisdiction

Quote:
...the decision below is not a final judgment because it neither finally accepts nor finally rejects petitioners’ PLCAA defense. This Court has never understood Section 1257(a) to authorize review of such intermediate rulings, and this is surely not the case in which to rewrite the rules governing the Court’s jurisdiction... petitioners will have a future opportunity to request review in this Court. Granting review now would cast aside all the norms of restraint and selectivity that have marked this Court’s Section 1257(a) jurisprudence...
The Decision Does Not Warrant This Court’s Review

Quote:
No Division of Authority Exists... The Connecticut Supreme Court Reached the Correct Result... The Interlocutory Decision Will Not Have The Broad Effects That Petitioners Claim...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-23-2019, 4:23 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 258
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.

Also, from 10/18: Reply of petitioners Remington Arms Co., LLC, et al.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-12-2019, 7:42 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit go forward

Quote:
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can pursue their lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 26 people.

The justices rejected an appeal from Remington Arms that argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes...
According to NPR...

Quote:
The court opted not to hear the gun-maker's appeal, in a decision that was announced Tuesday morning. The justices did not include any comment about the case, Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, as they turned it away.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 11-12-2019 at 7:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-12-2019, 8:01 AM
citizen1 citizen1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This article is appearing all over the internet news today.

Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturer brought by Sandy Hook families

The following appears in these articles:

Quote:
The justices' action allows a lawsuit filed by parents of Sandy Hook Elementary School victims to move forward at the state level, on the allegation that Remington Arms Co. marketed the military-style rifle used in the mass shooting "for use in assaults against human beings."
I tried to find where Remington actually advertised "for use in assaults against human beings." but could not find it.

Is this purely made up and a complete lie?

Anyone find the actual Remington Ad?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-12-2019, 8:12 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,804
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen1 View Post
This article is appearing all over the internet news today.

Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturer brought by Sandy Hook families

The following appears in these articles:



I tried to find where Remington actually advertised "for use in assaults against human beings." but could not find it.

Is this purely made up and a complete lie?

Anyone find the actual Remington Ad?
I doubt such a statement in advertisement ever existed. The Plaintiff's team will likely try to connect the dots to create an illusion of such alleged intent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-12-2019, 8:38 AM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 1,137
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Wow. This could destroy the gun industry.

Having manufactures spending tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for 1 case where a firearm was used illegally is hard enough. Now what if they have 10, 20, 50 cases in one year filed against them?
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-12-2019, 9:24 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,957
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

unfriggingbelievable.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-12-2019, 9:47 AM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 458
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

The case is based upon the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The theory being that the AR-15 in question was marketed by Remington in a way that led to the Sandy Hook shooting. Apparently SCOTUS thinks that unfair marketing is a loophole in the PLCAA. All you need is 4 justices to grant cert, so don't just blame the libs on the court.

Here's the ad:



I think the real problem for the plaintiffs is to prove that the shooter actually saw the ad, because the statute does seem to require causation:

Quote:
Sec. 42-110g. Action for damages. Class actions. Costs and fees. Equitable relief. Jury trial. (a) Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b, may bring an action in the judicial district in which the plaintiff or defendant resides or has his principal place of business or is doing business, to recover actual damages. Proof of public interest or public injury shall not be required in any action brought under this section. The court may, in its discretion, award punitive damages and may provide such equitable relief as it deems necessary or proper.
I notice that the plaintiff's attorney is claiming this:

Quote:
"It wasn't just that they marketed the weapon looking for people with the characteristics of Adam Lanza. It's that Adam Lanza heard the message, and was driven specifically to the Bushmaster for his weapon for this combat mission."
Nice theory counselor, but it might be hard to prove. Especially since his mother bought the AR15 in question.

I would point out that most states have this sort of law. California arguably has three such laws, B&P 17200 (Unfair Competition), B&P 17500 (False Advertising), and Cal Civ Code 1750 (California Consumers Legal Remedies Act).
__________________
IAALBNYL, DNROTAALA: I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer. Do Not Rely On The Above As Legal Advice.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:38 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guninator View Post
The case is based upon the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The theory being that the AR-15 in question was marketed by Remington in a way that led to the Sandy Hook shooting. Apparently SCOTUS thinks that unfair marketing is a loophole in the PLCAA. All you need is 4 justices to grant cert, so don't just blame the libs on the court.

Here's the ad:



I think the real problem for the plaintiffs is to prove that the shooter actually saw the ad, because the statute does seem to require causation:



I notice that the plaintiff's attorney is claiming this:



Nice theory counselor, but it might be hard to prove. Especially since his mother bought the AR15 in question.

I would point out that most states have this sort of law. California arguably has three such laws, B&P 17200 (Unfair Competition), B&P 17500 (False Advertising), and Cal Civ Code 1750 (California Consumers Legal Remedies Act).
Actually, it's not a 'loophole.' There are specific 'exceptions' written into the PLCAA.

Quote:
First Exception: An action brought against a transferor convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(h), or a comparable or identical state felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted...

Second Exception: An action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se...

Third Exception: An action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a state or federal law applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought including:
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) or (n)...

Fourth Exception: An action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product.

Fifth Exception: An action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage...

Sixth Exception: An action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26...
It might help to note Fiddletown's summary.

Insofar as proving that the advertising directly impacted Lanza's "acquisition," a couple of things to bear in mind. First, he was denied actual purchase, ostensibly because...

Quote:
...Sources said he entered the store “earlier in the week” in the Newtown area and inquired about buying one rifle. He was only 20 years old, and did not have a permit for firearms, and was told about a 14-day background check that would have to be done, the sources said.

“He didn’t want to wait the 14 days,” said one source, declining to be identified because the case is still under review. “So they denied him. The sale did not take place.”...
As Breitbart would note in 2013... Sandy Hook Report: Adam Lanza Broke Laws to Acquire Guns, Broke More Laws Using Them

Quote:
All of the guns were lawfully purchased by Lanza’s mother, as was all the ammunition. Lanza then bypassed all gun control by stealing the firearms before using them to carry out his heinous crimes.
My suspicion is that the underlying point to this lawsuit is "information" which can be gleaned in discovery, particularly given, as you note, the long-shot nature in that Lanza did not legally obtain the firearms. As noted in the AP piece...

Quote:
...The families' lawyer, Joshua Koskoff, said the next step will be the discovery phase in which Remington will be compelled to disclose certain internal company documents.

"The families are just universally happy with this result," he said. "They have wanted nothing more out of this case than to shed light on the conduct of the manufacturer of the weapon that was the source of taking the lives of their loved ones."...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:40 AM
jbolton's Avatar
jbolton jbolton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 1,412
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Well the libs in the country have finally found a way to get at the 2nd.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:59 AM
kinkarcana kinkarcana is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 52
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

At least we got Kavanaugh and Gorsurch, ohh wait ****.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-12-2019, 12:08 PM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 458
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Actually, it's not a 'loophole.' There are specific 'exceptions' written into the PLCAA.
With respect, I was trying to type a quick summary on an iPhone - my PC being dead - using layman's terms, not a friend of the court brief, so let's not get into a semantics debate.

Rest assured, I have read the PLCAA. But, the sections you provide, 15 USC 7903 (5)(A)(iii)(I-II), do not necessarily suggest that unfair or misleading advertising are per se exceptions. They suggest misleading ads about the legality of the gun would be exceptions, like an ad marketing a "California legal assault rifle" when they are not in fact CA legal. Or an ad guiding prohibited possessors how to obtain guns, e.g., "Get your man card back by stealing your mom's AR-15."

So the Remington ad would be a broad interpretation of 15 USC 7903 (5)(A)(iii)(I) when viewed in light of the legislative history and intent of the PLCAA, IMO. That purpose and intent was to stop this exact sort of suit, IMO. If I were Remington's counsel, I'd make extensive use the word "loophole."

My point was also to highlight the distinction between unlawful and unfair (PLCAA says unlawful, or "violates", not unfair], which is what makes these state laws so pernicious. It's one thing to prove illegality, i.e., violating a statute like fraud or even false claims about a pill enhancing male libido. But you can basically sue claiming anything is "unfair."

I've been wondering if courts might someday strike down these state "unfair" laws altogether as unconstitutionally vague and therefor violate due process, as they have with excessive punitive damage awards.

Quote:
My suspicion is that the underlying point to this lawsuit is "information" which can be gleaned in discovery, particularly given, as you note, the long-shot nature in that Lanza did not legally obtain the firearms. As noted in the AP piece...
Yes it will provide a "roadmap" for other suits as AP says, but plaintiffs still must prove causation. I don't know how you do that unless you find proof a shooter saw the ad and acted pursuant to its message. I mean, I look at AR's and related parts several times a week and I don't remember what any of the ads said. And even if I did, the ads aren't the reason I buy an AR.

This Lanza psycho had a lot of evidence of having read about school shootings dating back to 1891. But not, say, a man card Remington AR ad in a magazine circled in red pen with notations, "Yes! This is how I can be a man, steal mom's AR and shoot a bunch of kids!" He was also carrying a Glock.
__________________
IAALBNYL, DNROTAALA: I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer. Do Not Rely On The Above As Legal Advice.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-12-2019, 12:29 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,130
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

The problem with the SCOTUS decision isn't that the plaintiffs may win the lawsuit. That is very unlikely to happen considering they have to prove the Lanza decided to shoot all those kids because he saw the rifle advertising.
The real problem is everyone who has a family member shot by a murderer can now sue the manufacturer of the gun used in the crime. Despite what most people believe because of the leftist propaganda, gun manufacturers are not huge multi-billion dollar corporations. They operate on slim profit margins and the huge legal expenses required to defend themselves over and over, each time someone brings a lawsuit could put them out of business for good. Which is exactly what the left wants. They don't want justice for the victims, they don't want firearm crime prevention; what they really want is the entire American firearm industry to go bankrupt and with it the abolition of the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-12-2019, 12:41 PM
Usmc0844spare Usmc0844spare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Political issues aside, that ad IS very cringey.

If anyone here is associating their firearms with manliness, I don't wanna know ya. And since companies don't throw ads out there willy-nilly without knowing their audience, I'd say there ARE a lot of people who associate firearms with dick size.

Someone asked me once, "Does owning guns make you feel POWERFUL?"

I said "No, the feeling I get is one of overwhelming responsibility."
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-12-2019, 1:23 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,249
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can pursue their lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 26 people.

The justices rejected an appeal from Remington Arms that argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes...
Does anyone have a reasonable theory as to why the court decided not to dismiss this case?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-12-2019, 1:53 PM
Kokopelli's Avatar
Kokopelli Kokopelli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "the drop edge of yonder"
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Adam Lanza murdered the legal owner of the Bushmaster in order to take possession of the weapon he used to do his mayhem.
__________________
“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” - Ronald Reagan
"God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best." - Voltaire
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-12-2019, 2:06 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is just racking up the legal fees Remington is going to recover. People will be "outraged" by it too...
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-12-2019, 2:11 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,199
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
The real problem is everyone who has a family member shot by a murderer can now sue the manufacturer of the gun used in the crime.
As explained by Fiddletown, the Plaintiff's suit is not premised upon negligence or defective product. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...3&postcount=16. In the absence of negligence or defective product, the Plaintiff must plead and prove a different body of law such as false advertising or unfair business practices. Review Connecticut Civil Procedure. As explained comprehensively by Fiddletown, the Remington case is in the initial stages, wherein the form of the pleadings is disputed, i.e. whether, accepting the facts as true, the plaintiffs plead sufficient facts under a cognizable theory of law (the Plaintiff need not prove the facts, nor can the defendant assail the facts as plead). That someone plead a cognizable cause of action under a state law not subject to the PLCAA's immunity does not automatically mean that anyone can file suit under any theory of law in every state. After discovery, the Plaintiffs must still survive a motion for summary judgment (SMJ) prior to trial (whether there are there provable facts supporting any disputed issue that the jury may review or any dispute theories of law; if there is no dispute of fact or law, the court may issue a judgment as to that undisputed issue of fact, undisputed issue of law, or an entire cause of action).

If they survive those motions, the Plaintiff's case must survive motions in limine to narrow the evidence and remaining issues for the jury. If the jury finds in the Plaintiff's favor on any theory of law permitted by the bench to proceed to a verdict, the Plaintiffs face a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or motion to set aside the judgment (JNOV/motion to set aside void judgment).

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certification for review. U.S. Supreme Court need not draft a brief or provide any reason for its denial of cert. The Connecticut Supreme Court's decision is found here: https://cases.justia.com/connecticut...?ts=1552653732 Without actually reading the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision or even addressing the decision, this dupe thread will quickly lead to another dead end.

Last edited by sarabellum; 11-12-2019 at 2:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-12-2019, 6:02 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,950
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usmc0844spare View Post
Political issues aside, that ad IS very cringey.

If anyone here is associating their firearms with manliness, I don't wanna know ya. And since companies don't throw ads out there willy-nilly without knowing their audience, I'd say there ARE a lot of people who associate firearms with dick size.

Someone asked me once, "Does owning guns make you feel POWERFUL?"

I said "No, the feeling I get is one of overwhelming responsibility."
If that is the ad the plaintiffs are relaying on then it would take many illogical leaps of logic to come to the conclusion that it promotes illegal violence towards another. I see nothing "cringey" about that ad. Having your "man card reissued" can mean anything to any individual, it doesn't scream "commit murder en mass".
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-12-2019, 7:54 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,249
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWalt View Post
it doesn't scream "commit murder en mass".
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-12-2019, 8:38 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 636
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just worry about reverse jury nullification, and they get a bunch of liberals that want to make a point and don't care about the jury instructions and side with the families.
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:42 PM
SelfGovernor SelfGovernor is offline
Certified Gun Nerd
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 231
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, relax, and meditate on what the Role of the US Supreme Court is,...

That is Judicial review of lower court decisions and whether or not government operation is lawful based on the Constitution. Going directly to SCOTUS with a civil issue before it has adjudicated is generally not accepted as long as I've watched.

Until a court makes a judgement that is deemed Unconstitutional by SCOTUS, there is nothing for SCOTUS to do here.

So behind closed doors, the Lib Justices are thinking...(Constitution be dammed, We hate guns... NO)

The Conservative Justices are thinking, (Hey Wheres the beef?... NO)

So, Remington has to defend themselves in state court and use the Law as a defense. If they loose, now they have reason to appeal...up to SCOTUS.
__________________
... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-13-2019, 3:54 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,591
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
The problem with the SCOTUS decision isn't that the plaintiffs may win the lawsuit. That is very unlikely to happen considering they have to prove the Lanza decided to shoot all those kids because he saw the rifle advertising.
The real problem is everyone who has a family member shot by a murderer can now sue the manufacturer of the gun used in the crime. Despite what most people believe because of the leftist propaganda, gun manufacturers are not huge multi-billion dollar corporations. They operate on slim profit margins and the huge legal expenses required to defend themselves over and over, each time someone brings a lawsuit could put them out of business for good. Which is exactly what the left wants. They don't want justice for the victims, they don't want firearm crime prevention; what they really want is the entire American firearm industry to go bankrupt and with it the abolition of the 2nd Amendment.
I agree and would add the court should have upheld the law currently baring gun makers from being sued for the misuse of their products. Allowing this suit to go forward will set the wrong precedence in many other business as well and will only drive up the cost of doing business everywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-13-2019, 5:41 AM
ja308's Avatar
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,651
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yesterday at the top of the hour swamp news, it was reported the Supreme Court rejected Remingtons appeal and the suit was allowed to continue.

Years back I wanted a device that would shut off the radio at the exact time swamp news came on and would return to my programs after they were done.
It seems I will need to use the kitchen timer to tune them out at. the top of the hour.

As others have said this is another attempt to bankrupt our gun industry !
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

"Liars Make The Best Promises " Pierce Brown.

Last edited by ja308; 11-13-2019 at 5:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-13-2019, 6:23 AM
seanbo's Avatar
seanbo seanbo is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: monterey co.
Posts: 1,140
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Anyone know how the Supreme Court Justices voted? Was it 5 to 4? Who was the trader?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-13-2019, 6:42 AM
newbutold newbutold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: CA
Posts: 557
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanbo View Post
Anyone know how the Supreme Court Justices voted? Was it 5 to 4? Who was the trader?
The law business at large trades Rights for cash all the time
__________________
The president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets, free people, or the Constitution.

Trump mimics people with narcissistic personality disorder, long-term pattern of abnormal behavior, exaggerated with feelings of self-importance, excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy as he awaits the enthronement.

Often hard to tell the difference between the bots, the convicts, and the meshugas.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-13-2019, 7:01 AM
mike.h's Avatar
mike.h mike.h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: petaluma
Posts: 1,447
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
This is just racking up the legal fees Remington is going to recover. People will be "outraged" by it too...
Litigation ruined general aviation.

So let's see.... if you cut your hand removing an avocado seed, do you sue the knife maker or the avocado farmer... Hmmmm ....or maybe God for putting that pesky seed in there.


Madness...
__________________
USAF 1966-70
SEA '69-70
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-13-2019, 10:36 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 302
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There are a lot of people on here that need to read (or re-read) Sarabellums post above (#30).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:22 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical