|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Remington Appeals to SCOTUS (Remington vs Soto et al); Update: Remington Makes Offer
Gunmaker Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sandy Hook Appeal
Quote:
Here's a direct link to the .pdf of the appeal. Quote:
Links to the documents filed in this case can now be found in Post #5 below. Update: See Post #62 Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 07-27-2021 at 9:55 PM.. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
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:
Happy Reading. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Truly- activist Judges making a statement.
__________________
NRA & CRPA member semi-docile tax payer amateur survivalist Nolite te bastardes carborundorum! |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I'm betting they ignore this case like dozens of others stuck in the pipeline.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
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:
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
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:
Quote:
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit go forward
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 11-12-2019 at 7:45 AM.. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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:
Is this purely made up and a complete lie? Anyone find the actual Remington Ad? |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
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"...... |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
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:
Quote:
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).
__________________
"The right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. -- Justice Alito, McDonald v. Chicago |
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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:
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.
__________________
"The right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. -- Justice Alito, McDonald v. Chicago |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
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! |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
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." |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
^^^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 |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 ! Last edited by ja308; 11-13-2019 at 5:52 AM.. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
The law business at large trades Rights for cash all the time
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Robert J. Hanlon No more dems, rinos, commies, , pinkos, crooks, pedos, frauds, idiots, lunatics, wanna be dictators or traitors. No old fools for President from any party. The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. Donald J. Trump 1/7/21 |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Man card" is a pretty well established bit of slang. Going back to the actual issue, it mentions other stuff besides that ad ("promotional materials" I believe they called it) which I tried to locate but could not, but the quoted passages are pretty cringey as well. As others have pointed out, good luck proving that the kid ever saw or was influenced by that material... and I hope that alone sinks the case. Of course, for all we know, that little psycho f*** might have had the ad blown up and framed on his wall... Anyway, lest anyone have any doubts, I disagree with SCOTUS on this decision and agree that it has dire implications. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|