Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire SCOTUS allows Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit

In those examples the hotel and the bus company DO have some liability. It's more like someone gets drunk and hits a pedestrian, so it's the car manufacturer's fault.

This and that. Today's decision means basically nothing, a long shot attempt at best.

Gory details for masochists

Wrong. That’s not how it works. The victory for the left is that they are now free to force gun makers into court every time someone is harmed by means of a firearm, which will put them out of business. Losing the suit doesn’t set a precedent preventing others from bringing similar suits.

I'd like to know who voted how.

It will cost Remington and it's insurer millions to defend this suit. This risk will factor into decisions by insurers and other firearm manufacturers.

We need a law that forces the loser in litigation to pay the other sides legal fees. Such a law would prevent fishing expeditions by plaintiff attorney's.

You'd be scratched off the list as soon as they found out you were a contributor to this site.

DF

And all those complaints about a soft gun market.

Hide and watch those black rifle prices start inching upward...

DF

Lots of folks will have to rent scuba gear to find their black rifles that accidently fell out of their boat.

Unless there's more to this than I've been made aware this is more of a money grab than an actual threat to firearm rights. It's my understanding CT has specific state laws than incorporate liability for certain marketing. If you live somewhere with no such laws then the impact would seem to be minimal. (this is assuming the suit is successful in the first place) In any case it doesn't appear that the PLCAA simply ceases to exist but care would have to be given to how firearms are marketed, at least in certain areas.

The first thing I thought of was the Joe Camel/RJ Reynolds controversy back in the 90's.

I am betting he knew all along Roberts was a full blown socialist.

EXACTLY! England has had such a law for many decades.

Yep.

Make them prove anybody was killed at Sandy Hook first.

I haven't read all the post here but if you read the link all the way through you find it was the Connecticut state Supreme court and not the U.S. Supreme court allowing the suit. Big difference.

OOPs, my bad. Referred to outdated article.

And lawyers cashing in on someone else's tragedy.

kwg

Just because the suit is allowed does not mean they will win

Having said that-- didn't the court rule awhile back that the companies could not be sued in these cases?

You're referencing the PLCAA and it does give very broad protections to arms manufacturers. At issue in this case is a CT (where Sandy Hook took place) law that brings about a liability issue regarding how something is marketed.

No. It was the US Supremes. Apparently there is a justiciable factual question: did Remington engage in advertising practices which took it outside the ambit of the act's protections. The US Supremes simply refused to disturb the ruling of the state supreme court that it was a question for the jury whether Remington engaged in improper marketing practices.

No. SCOTUS merely allowed the original trial to continue. It has not yet reached a verdict. It's hard to imagine how Remington could lose, but anything is possible. If they lose, they can appeal.

I’d like to see the school sued for requiring these children to sit in a fish in a barrel situation unprotected. Anyone harmed in a no gun zone should have standing if there isn’t adequate armed security on the grounds.