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 > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-14-2019, 8:45 AM
pl411 pl411 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 55
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Ct rules Remington Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook

The following is being reported on a legal newswire:

BREAKING: Remington Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook Shooting, Court Rules

Today a divided Connecticut Supreme Court revived a suit over the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, ruling that gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle that was used in the massacre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-14-2019, 8:52 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,726
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm going to Connecticut and suing Johnnie Walker for distilling booze strong enough to make me sleep with ugly women.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-14-2019, 8:54 AM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 999
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

This will get appealed to the USSC. There should be enough votes to hear the case now.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-14-2019, 9:09 AM
Rivers's Avatar
Rivers Rivers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Poway, CA
Posts: 1,433
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

More feel-good legislating from the bench.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Basic Pistol Shooting
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-14-2019, 10:44 AM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,171
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

More virtue signaling from the leftoids on the court. Pretty sure the federal PLCFA precludes this.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-14-2019, 11:33 AM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Wow, look at all the distinguished graduates of the Calguns School of Law...

The court ruled they CAN be sued, not that they should be sued or are culpable.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-14-2019, 11:47 AM
ironhorse1 ironhorse1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 92020
Posts: 842
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

So if we use that same logic then car makers can be sued for accidents based upon marketing fast cars.

I'm pretty sure the suit goes nowhere because gunmakers are protected by law.

The court is leaning heavy on the however clause in the law. I don't remember if any suit has been successful since the law was passed.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:03 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yes, and any codified immunity for certain businesses or people should be done away with.

The ability to take legal action is a separate legal issue than the merits of a legal action. Preemptively blocking civil claims is a bad business.

Most people can't differentiate between the two concepts, hence why a certain aptitude is required to practice and study law.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:23 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,726
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckDizzle View Post
Yes, and any codified immunity for certain businesses or people should be done away with.

The ability to take legal action is a separate legal issue than the merits of a legal action. Preemptively blocking civil claims is a bad business.

Most people can't differentiate between the two concepts, hence why a certain aptitude is required to practice and study law.
This is the equivalent of suing Chevy for making cars people can drive while drunk. Misuse of an product is entirely different than negligence due to faulty design. Taurus just lost a lawsuit for exactly that. It appears aptitude for law didn't make all the way to you.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:42 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
This is the equivalent of suing Chevy for making cars people can drive while drunk. Misuse of an product is entirely different than negligence due to faulty design. Taurus just lost a lawsuit for exactly that. It appears aptitude for law didn't make all the way to you.
This is a great example of a failure to distinguish between the merits of a case and procedural standing to make a claim.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:48 PM
lightcav's Avatar
lightcav lightcav is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,546
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Thats really sad to see people so overcome with grief and anger that they let charlatan lawyers con them out of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees for what pretty much amounts to as a frivolous lawsuit. Cant believe the CT court was so heartless to let them continue to be conned. This will be a slam dunk win for Remington.

Wont the plaintiffs have to pay Remington's legal fees, when Remington wins?
__________________
Disclosure/Disclaimer: I do not coddle millennials or OFWGs. The OPINIONS expressed herein are my own personal opinions and are NOT legal advice. Please remember I am just some random guy on the internet so don't get your panties twisted if you dont agree with me.

Last edited by lightcav; 03-14-2019 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:51 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckDizzle View Post
This is a great example of a failure to distinguish between the merits of a case and procedural standing to make a claim.
Who get sued in the Manhattan truck attack, the rental place that rented truck, the truck manufacturer or both?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-14-2019, 1:00 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,726
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckDizzle View Post
This is a great example of a failure to distinguish between the merits of a case and procedural standing to make a claim.
Gun manufacturers do not have immunity for faulty product design any more than auto manufacturers. Taurus proved that
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-14-2019, 1:32 PM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 453
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

How do you sue over a media False Flag event?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-14-2019, 1:40 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightcav View Post
Thats really sad to see people so overcome with grief and anger that they let charlatan lawyers con them out of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees for what pretty much amounts to as a frivolous lawsuit. Cant believe the CT court was so heartless to let them continue to be conned. This will be a slam dunk win for Remington.

Wont the plaintiffs have to pay Remington's legal fees, when Remington wins?
Depends on a few factors, but "frivolous" lawsuits can result in a plaintiff being liable for litigation expenses.

I'm not familiar with any of the facts in alleged by the plaintiffs, or sure what claims are being made, but it would seem a stretch that Remmington will be found liable.

The issue right now is if these plaintiffs CAN sue, not if they should win.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-14-2019, 1:40 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The actual opinion can be read here. If you expect to understand the case you must read the actual opinion and not waste time reading media.

I'm going to get technical here.

This is all about a highly technical point of civil procedure (which is one reason the press will get it wrong). This is still in a very preliminary stage, and the plaintiffs haven't won yet. (This lawsuit was previously discussed at length in this thread. I outline very basic civil litigation procedure in this post.)
  1. The plaintiffs appealed the trial courts dismissal of their case on the defendant's motion to strike (the Connecticut name for what is elsewhere called a motion to dismiss or a demurrer).

  2. Making such a motion is one of the very first thing a defendant does when sued. Essentially nothing else has gone on yet.

    • The plaintiff filed the complaint -- the document that say you [the defendant] owe me money and these are the facts that support my claim.

    • The defendant files his motion to strike/motion to dismiss/demurrer which basically says that even if every fact you allege is true as a matter of law you have no valid claim against me.

  3. So the plaintiffs filed the suit alleging various facts. At this stage those facts are assumed to be true. The defendants filed a motion saying the even if those facts are true, the plaintiffs have no valid claim. The trial court agreed and dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed.

  4. On appeal the Connecticut Supreme Court (CSC) mostly agreed with the trial court. The CSC wrote in the opinion:
    Quote:
    ....For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we agree with the defendants that most of the plaintiffs’ claims and legal theories are precluded by established Connecticut law and/or PLCAA. For example, we expressly reject the plaintiffs’ theory that, merely by selling semiautomatic rifles—which were legal at the time—to the civilian population, the defendants became responsible for any crimes committed with those weapons....
  5. However, the CSC disagreed with the trial court on one point. The CSC writes:
    Quote:
    ....The plaintiffs have offered one narrow legal theory, however, that is recognized under established Connecticut law. Specifically, they allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior. Following a scrupulous review of the text and legislative history of PLCAA, we also conclude that Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to extinguish the traditional authority of our legislature and our courts to protect the people of Connecticut from the pernicious practices alleged in the present case. The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers. Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations. We affirm the trial court’s judgment insofar as that court struck the plaintiffs’ claims predicated on all other legal theories.....
  6. So --

    • The CSC did not find that anything the plaintiffs claimed was true. The CSC merely, as required, assumed those facts were true in order to then decide the open questions of law.

    • The CSC determined that most of the plaintiffs claims were not valid, legal claims; and those claims have been decided in favor of the defendants.

    • The CSC is allowing the lawsuit to go forward on the one legal theory of liability remaining. That legal theory is based on claimed liability under a Connecticut consumer protection law. In doing so the CSC also decides that the claim under the particular state law was not precluded by the PLCAA.

  7. The plaintiffs will still need to prove that the facts alleged to support their last viable theory of liability are true.

  8. Also, the defendants can appeal to the federal courts on whether, as found by the CSC, a suit based on the particular state law is not precluded by the PLCAA.

There's still a lot of waiting and seeing to be done as the lawsuit grind through the process.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-14-2019, 1:41 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
Who get sued in the Manhattan truck attack, the rental place that rented truck, the truck manufacturer or both?
Depends on all the facts and who knew what when and what duties exist or don't.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-14-2019, 1:51 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckDizzle View Post
Depends on all the facts and who knew what when and what duties exist or don't.
Wonder who would be sued for letting dangerous non citizen people that commit crimes into the United States? Also for US citizens do parents get sued for their children growing up to be dangerous people who commit crimes?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-14-2019, 2:15 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
Wonder who would be sued for letting dangerous non citizen people that commit crimes into the United States? Also for US citizens do parents get sued for their children growing up to be dangerous people who commit crimes?
Lucky for them the government has instituted a bunch of shields for their own liability for such claims.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-14-2019, 2:34 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
The actual opinion can be read here. If you expect to understand the case you must read the actual opinion and not waste time reading media.

I'm going to get technical here.

This is all about a highly technical point of civil procedure (which is one reason the press will get it wrong). This is still in a very preliminary stage, and the plaintiffs haven't won yet. (This lawsuit was previously discussed at length in this thread. I outline very basic civil litigation procedure in this post.)
  1. The plaintiffs appealed the trial courts dismissal of their case on the defendant's motion to strike (the Connecticut name for what is elsewhere called a motion to dismiss or a demurrer).

  2. Making such a motion is one of the very first thing a defendant does when sued. Essentially nothing else has gone on yet.

    • The plaintiff filed the complaint -- the document that say you [the defendant] owe me money and these are the facts that support my claim.

    • The defendant files his motion to strike/motion to dismiss/demurrer which basically says that even if every fact you allege is true as a matter of law you have no valid claim against me.

  3. So the plaintiffs filed the suit alleging various facts. At this stage those facts are assumed to be true. The defendants filed a motion saying the even if those facts are true, the plaintiffs have no valid claim. The trial court agreed and dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed.

  4. On appeal the Connecticut Supreme Court (CSC) mostly agreed with the trial court. The CSC wrote in the opinion:
  5. However, the CSC disagreed with the trial court on one point. The CSC writes:
  6. So --

    • The CSC did not find that anything the plaintiffs claimed was true. The CSC merely, as required, assumed those facts were true in order to then decide the open questions of law.

    • The CSC determined that most of the plaintiffs claims were not valid, legal claims; and those claims have been decided in favor of the defendants.

    • The CSC is allowing the lawsuit to go forward on the one legal theory of liability remaining. That legal theory is based on claimed liability under a Connecticut consumer protection law. In doing so the CSC also decides that the claim under the particular state law was not precluded by the PLCAA.

  7. The plaintiffs will still need to prove that the facts alleged to support their last viable theory of liability are true.

  8. Also, the defendants can appeal to the federal courts on whether, as found by the CSC, a suit based on the particular state law is not precluded by the PLCAA.

There's still a lot of waiting and seeing to be done as the lawsuit grind through the process.
This still seems like a lost cause. Plaintiff argues that marketing pushes "illegal offensive purposes". How do they prove that any ad or image displays an illegal action?
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-14-2019, 2:41 PM
MolonLabe2008's Avatar
MolonLabe2008 MolonLabe2008 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,010
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I thought the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" passed in 2005 and signed by GWB prevents this from happening. What am I missing?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-14-2019, 2:44 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008 View Post
I thought the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" passed in 2005 and signed by GWB prevents this from happening. What am I missing?
Read Fiddletown's post. Effectively 4 judges say that the PLCAA doesn't preclude enforcement of the CT consumer protection law. So all they can do is sue over their marketing strategy.

I don't think this case is about winning for the victims any longer, its to see if they can poke a hole in the PLCAA. Thats their victory if this sticks, they have no chance of actually defending their media theory in court.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder

Last edited by Sousuke; 03-14-2019 at 5:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-14-2019, 3:28 PM
hambam105 hambam105 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,334
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Win-Lose-or Draw...
The price of any firearm is going in which direction did you say?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-14-2019, 3:59 PM
BigPimping's Avatar
BigPimping BigPimping is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Roasting those freaks in the hood
Posts: 16,581
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

The lawyers are the only winners here. Every minute they are billing those gullible parents who think they're going to win a huge settlement. Remington and Everytown for Gun Safety will wind up paying a ton of money to trial lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-14-2019, 5:32 PM
Barang's Avatar
Barang Barang is offline
His Glorious Reappearing
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Temporary here on earth
Posts: 3,952
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

sue the makers of hammers, cars, bats, knives ......
builders of highways, buildings, bridges ......

__________________
Heb 9:27 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement."

******* Consider your final destiny, there is no second chance there. *******

Last edited by Barang; 03-15-2019 at 10:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-14-2019, 5:32 PM
OCGun OCGun is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 39
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Read Fiddletown's post. Effectively 4 judges say that the PLCAA doesn't preclude enforcement of the CT consumer protection law. So all they can do is sue over their marketing strategy.

I don't think this case is about winning for the victims any longer, its to see if they can poke a hole in the PLCAA. Thats their victory if this sticks, they have no chance of actually defending their media theory in court.
I may have missed it but has anyone asked how CT consumer protection could be applied to someone who killed in order to steal the firearm? Since his mother owned the firearm, how was it possibly marketed to the killer?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-14-2019, 6:01 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barang View Post
sue the makers of hammers, cars, bats, knive ......
builders of highways, buildings, bridges ......

They already get sued.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-14-2019, 6:02 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGun View Post
I may have missed it but has anyone asked how CT consumer protection could be applied to someone who killed in order to steal the firearm? Since his mother owned the firearm, how was it possibly marketed to the killer?
He didn't steal them, she gave him access to them.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-14-2019, 6:21 PM
cbsdd00 cbsdd00 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 482
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Crazy. I grew up in this State. They need to change the license plates because it says the Constitution State on the bottom half of it. Lol.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-14-2019, 6:52 PM
EvoXguy's Avatar
EvoXguy EvoXguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 594
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
How do you sue over a media False Flag event?

Beat me to it bro!
__________________
Peace through superior firepower
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-14-2019, 6:58 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,546
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Drive by media is having lots of fun with this as part of their programming agenda.

Does anyone know if Remington is in Connecticut and thats why the suit is there ?
__________________
Political correctness...
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.
To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control...TD
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-14-2019, 7:31 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckDizzle View Post
He didn't steal them, she gave him access to them.
She not around anymore to sue, maybe the company that made the violent video games he was playing could be sued too?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-14-2019, 7:49 PM
32spoke 32spoke is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

chuckdizzle, thank you for providing clear facts, I value this. 👍
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-14-2019, 8:11 PM
D.A.V.I.D.'s Avatar
D.A.V.I.D. D.A.V.I.D. is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Walnut Creek
Posts: 1,558
iTrader: 96 / 100%
Default

C9EE6C85-EB1C-48A5-AA6B-A357C069AEDE.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
How do you sue over a media False Flag event?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-14-2019, 8:11 PM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 8,317
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPimping View Post
The lawyers are the only winners here. Every minute they are billing those gullible parents who think they're going to win a huge settlement. Remington and Everytown for Gun Safety will wind up paying a ton of money to trial lawyers.
I bet the parents aren't paying a cent. It's either pro-bono by lefty lawyers or being paid by some lefty organization or lefty patron like George Soros.
__________________
Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain. - Sir Winston Churchill

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! - Senator Barry Goldwater
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-14-2019, 8:27 PM
FalconLair's Avatar
FalconLair FalconLair is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Summerlin, NV.
Posts: 2,809
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k1dude View Post
I bet the parents aren't paying a cent. It's either pro-bono by lefty lawyers or being paid by some lefty organization or lefty patron like George Soros.
ok, and that's fine but will those very lefty lawyers or that left organization be ready to step up and pay the defendants legal fees too when this thing gets tossed and i don't think Remington will be considering any kind of settlement to this either - they have all the rights laws in their favor and to even offer a settlement would set a pretty damning precedent for cases like this

or, as i suspect, will they leave the plaintiffs lurching in the wind
__________________
Those who live by the sword...

get shot by those who don't

Last edited by FalconLair; 03-14-2019 at 8:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-14-2019, 8:57 PM
denpython denpython is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckDizzle View Post
Depends on all the facts and who knew what when and what duties exist or don't.
If Remington gets sued for marketing fantasy,and Remington loses on that narrow ground, then the movie industry that cultivates a movie culture of violence is. * ucked.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-14-2019, 9:02 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
She not around anymore to sue, maybe the company that made the violent video games he was playing could be sued too?
He didn't play violent video games. He spent most of his gaming time playing Dance Dance Revolution and other pattern coordination games (Guitar Hero/Rock Band).
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-14-2019, 9:04 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 4,296
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 32spoke View Post
chuckdizzle, thank you for providing clear facts, I value this. 👍
Often we react to bad news with emotion and it clouds an accurate perception of the situation. Just look at the Yeti debacle.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-14-2019, 9:08 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 6,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckDizzle View Post
He didn't play violent video games. He spent most of his gaming time playing Dance Dance Revolution and other pattern coordination games (Guitar Hero/Rock Band).
Then must be Hollywood like denpython mentioned.
__________________
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 6:44 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.