Hell yes.

Makes a ton a sense to me.

Been saying it for decades. People laughed at me. Now it is actually happening.

Way to connect the dots!!

Fugged up decisions have consequences....or should.

Anybody can sue for anything. Whether or not you're successful is another topic.

The next victim of a dunk driver should sue Ford and Budweiser.
Same deal.

Suing Remington for Sandy Hook comes from the same line of logic that says a woman has zero responsibility if she chooses to have sex while she’s drunk but is 100% responsible if she decides to drive a car drunk and will be charged accordingly.

Didn't one of the east coast states, S. Carolina I think, pass a law that essentially said, "if a store owner posted his property as a 'gun free zone', the store owner was responsible for your safety, until you were able to possess your gun."

In other words, if you left your gun in your car across the street from the store because the store was a posted 'gun free zone', the store owner was responsible for your safety until you get back to your car.

Added: I'm sure there are some 'gun free' stores around where I live, but I've never seen one. State law prohibits CC at some places.

I agree, they should sue them for not installing a breathalyzer that would not allow the vehicle to be used before passing it.

That’s a fact.

Even the liberal newscast I heard this on said Remington will likely win, but they want to dig into “how these guns are marketed”. Can’t remember a single ad that suggested AR’s were great for commiting a crime.

Apple should be crapping their pants from deaths from texting while driving. Ya think?

What gets me is the irony of “no guns” signs on all the doors and “what to do if there’s an active shooter “ posters in all the halls.

Have gun, will travel.

Speaking of Remington, their website sucks.

Amen. The idea behind “Concealed Carry” is that it’s concealed. If nobody knows you got it, then you’re doing it right.
I seldom go anywhere that forbids CC, and disarming where you’re likely to be seen to leave it in the vehicle seems to me like an invitation for having your vehicle robbed.
I figure that even if they find out you’re carrying, the most likely outcome is that they’re gonna ask you to leave.
Malls, movie theaters and such places are soft targets for those who have evil intent and wanna get their faces in the news. I don’t want me and mine to be a defenseless victim.

7mm

I always thought I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Hasbeen

Gun control will eventually come about not by Congress passing new laws, but by the courts. I am afraid we're beginning to see that happening.

Lowyers anticipated that, HB.

Small consolation, winning.

The laws proteting gun manufacturers were put in place recognizing that.
If the opposing forces are big enough, and persistent enough,
They can win the war while losing every battle.

With some organization (Soros?) Attorneys nationwide can find
cases to persue. Pro bono?

Remington will have to vigorously defend each one.
A single loss will be seen as precedent to rule against Remington
in every following case.

Death by a thousand court wins.
Remington will just be the first.

here,here

Well, if the gun-free zone is a store, they'll probably just say you should have opted to shop elsewhere.

Here, those signs really don't have any "teeth" to them, unless they see your gun, ask you to leave or take the gun outside and you refuse, then you're trespassing. Government-specified areas are another matter.

Anti-gun judges (so called) say Remington can now be sued because they made a 100% legal gun that was later used in a crime? The federal court now says Remington can be sued because they made a machine (as all firearms are) that was illegally used by a criminal LATER and the damage and loss inflicted by that criminal is now somehow Remington's fault?

OK ---- that will then be true of Ford, Chevy, and Dodge, Pfeiffer, Lilly and all other drug companies, all makers of alcoholic drinks, and all legislators who ever sign off on a bill that becomes law which causes a damage to ANY innocent person ever. Same with knife makers, ax makers, makers of baseball bats, wrenches and screw drivers.

Not to mention the fact that every company or firm, and every government owned property that ever has a "gun-free zone" established by any rule, law or policy would then be liable for any and all damages and losses due to a criminal having an easier time inflecting harm upon any citizen inside those zones.

The CEO and all corporate heads will then be guilty of aiding any criminal who assaults any citizen inside those zones who were rendered unsafe and disarmed because of such laws, policies and rules.


If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, and UNDER THE LAWS OF EQUITY that HAS TO NOW BE THE POLICY OF ALL FEDERAL COURTS STARTING RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Starting with politicians.

I love the Burger King Bacon King.

Two patties, bacon, mayo.

Can I sue for my fat, high blood pressure, shortened life?
Please say yes.

It wouldn't be fair to make me wait until after I die,
To make my wife rich!

Bring it and let politicians be PERSONALLY liable.

No, they can’t and they aren’t.

They are being sued for violation of CT law pertaining to marketing/ advertising , not manufacturing.

We need signs that read: "No Snowflakes, Liberals, Democrats or Sissies"

Reason why its so important to pack the courts with constitutionalist and fund the SAF.

Hell yes....

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.......