Not good...

Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit go forward

More:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...er-from-sandy-hook-lawsuit-idUSKBN1XM1W8

Not good. Mean while cigarettes, cars and alcohol are still legal ?

kwg

Complete and total BS, weapon owned legally by mom, kid wacks mom -steals gun, shoots up classroom and somehow its Remingtons fault? Meanwhile his sanity had been questioned a gazillion times.

I guess I must have missed that advertisement...



Lyin', gun grabbing POS's.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks, GWB for keeping the court BALANced.

betting Roberts stabbed us in the back again.......

Insane. What’s next, suits against General Motors for cases of hit and run?

They will lose and it will settle it once and for all...and if the firearms industry has any sense at all they will bankroll Remington's legal team to make sure that is the outcome.

Second amendment.

Yep. Must have been to Pedophile Island a time or two.

Missed this one.

It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.

Maybe the gun makers can sue the video game makers for using the likeness of a trademarked product for nefarious purposes?

It means that the left, funded by billionaires, can put the gun industry out of business with never ending lawsuits.

But all the "too smart" people tell you that those video games don't contribute to mass shootings....

It's crap like this that makes Trump's re-election so important. There's always a possibility of a turncoat like Roberts, but if the wrong side chooses members of the SCOTUS, they will ALL be turncoats against freedom.

It's not quite as the press is reporting. Shocking, I know.

SCOTUS declines about 98 percent of requests to take a case. Remington had requested that they take up their case, but the court declined to intervene, as they almost always do.

Remington will likely prevail.

The news is, SCOTUS left the status quo intact.

My point is that by having a likeness of the product in violent video games is illegal marketing, then it just stands to reason that the game makers would have to cease manufacture, distribution and force a mandatory buy back /confiscation of said games. This would also apply to games that use the likeness of a vette or Lamborghini for nefarious purposes such as Grand Theft Auto.
Also maybe since you have to be 21 in a lot of places now to buy a gun, maybe they should put that age limit on violent video games and if parents purchase these for an under age person, they would have sign a waiver that says they are responsible for all consequences.

That a lawsuit like this is even allowed to go through the court system is the news....

Which liberal judge do you trust with your Bill of Rights?

Right. This lawsuit, along with every other restrictive contemporary gun law has absolutely NOTHING to do with saving lives or public safety. Or keeping dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals. It's about disarming the American people. Period. End of story.

People that still believe that it's about public safety are nothing more than useful idiots.

There is a Remington standing in the corner by the back door.
I am keeping a wary eye on it, in case it starts acting hostile.

People that still believe that it's about public safety are nothing more than useful idiots. [/quote]................ AMEN.

We need replacements for Roberts and RBG.

There is a legal point here that's worth mention. Remington is in the middle of a trial and asked SCOTUS to intervene. Given the intense pressure of SCOTUS' calendar, they are very reluctant to take on interventions in existing trials, preferring to deal with verdicts from completed trials.

I think the law is very clear that this sort of liability lawsuit is prohibited and that the notion that Remington is somehow an exception because of their advertising is ludicrous, but while I wish SCOTUS had nipped this in the bud, I can see why they didn't.

I’ve never met a Veteran that thought shooting people was fun, yet video games portray it as such.

On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of hunters that enjoy shooting wild game and plenty of target shooters that enjoy the same.

So we have a hunting video game, a target shooting video game, and a “people shooting” video game.

Which one is preferred training ground for nutjobs?

If this successfully goes forward, it will be the end of the firearms industry. It also has the potential to make gun owners liable if they lose a firearms to theft. If this lawsuit is successful, every scum bag attorney will be filing suits against gun manufacturers in cases involving shootings.

If the Sandy Hook is successful, future litigation will most likely list the firearms dealer and I do not know of any dealer with deep enough pockets to contend or prevail in such a suit. We will also see insurance companies refuse liability insurance to gun dealers and manufacturers.

I hope ammunition companies are not the next targets of litigation.

Insane that *this* is Remington’s fault.

I don’t think this is good news. If they lose it break all gun manufacturers. Are Knife makers next?

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.
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.
Remington had appealed to the highest federal court after the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the Sandy Hook lawsuit to proceed in March. The company says the case "presents a nationally important question" about U.S. gun laws — namely, how to interpret the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants broad immunity to gun-makers and dealers from prosecution over crimes committed with their products.
Remington manufactured the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that Adam Lanza used on Dec. 14, 2012, to kill 20 first-graders and six adults at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

On the bright side, a loss (nearly certain) by the plaintiffs will settle the issue once and for all.




P

Don't be ridiculous, Are we going to ban hotels because when they burn down lots of people could die. What about bus companies, they crash and kill people all of the time. GM, cigarettes where the hell is this going end.

Gotta re-elect Trump. When RBG finally croaks, and Trump gets a strict constructionist in her seat, Roberts will no longer be the swing vote.

I don't see RBG lasting another 5 years.

MAGA

DF

Was there a dissent in this order?

The attorney group, who filed the Sandy Hook litigation, is willing to invest a huge amount of money in an effort to earn a contingency fee. I would wager it was a well calculated business decision. Given the right judge and jury, this could prove to be a game changer.

Just look at what happened to the tobacco companies. They have found tobacco companies liable for second hand smoke and they have found employers liable for allowing second hand smoke in the work place.

I would love to be a jurist on this trial.

No. It was returned to the lower court without comment.

This could basically end free enterprise in America, as no product can be manufactured to prevent misuse, whats next, matches that won't light, bolts without threads, bridges that no one can leap from, this whole concept is corrupt and should be laughed out of a sane courtroom!

Blame AAA for drunk driving.

Slippery slope, a bs kinda thing

This is the Creedmore of law suits, senseless, pointless, wasteful, unnecessary and will be prove to be a huge waste of time, energy and money in the end !

Maybe guns will be like ladders, only made by small companies with no money and covered with warning stickers.

I know a family with strip malls, in the trust name, so women cannot sue them for divorce and get anything.

This^^^^^

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.

Takes four votes to grant cert so at least five justices thought the petition should be denied. They don't say who, all you get is granted or denied.

To be relevant to the case Remington has to be directing marketing of these guns to young males. Which will be particularly hard to prove since the AR was legally owned by the mother...

After the trial SCOTUS might still get another chance at the case on appeal.

The whole purpose is to set the precedent to bankrupt the gun industry.

We may end up implementing 2A before long.

If I were Remington, I'd refuse to do business in CT or any govt agency that's part of any CT political subdivision.





I'm betting you're correct. Everyone in the Bush Clan are globalist elitist scum.

If Remington is liable for a school shooting, Boeing is liable for building the airplanes used in the 9/11 attacks.

Blatant example of the deep state and their efforts to eliminate guns from America.

Exactly.