Gunmaker Remington can be sued over marketing of rifle used in Sandy Hook shooting, court rules

[TreyHouston]

I like the idea of being able to sue the water company when my toliet overflows! AOC way of thinking

[G.A. Heath]

Keep in mind that we have a state supreme court saying that state law applies and that the Federal law doesn't, Remington can still appeal this ruling to the federal system and take this ruling to the federal supreme court if need be. While it looks bad, this could actually get a USSC ruling that would prevent other state level courts from ignoring the federal statute.

[The Annoyed Man]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 162168002/

HARTFORD, Conn. – Gunmaker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

So starts the full-court press. SCOTUS is more important than ever.

The court said the could sue...but the court has not said that they would win...

Given “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts’ record in recent years concerning other lefty treasures like the ACA, are you completely willing to put your trust in his wisdom?

[K.Mooneyham]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 162168002/

HARTFORD, Conn. – Gunmaker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

So starts the full-court press. SCOTUS is more important than ever.

The court said the could sue...but the court has not said that they would win...

Given “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts’ record in recent years concerning other lefty treasures like the ACA, are you completely willing to put your trust in his wisdom?

I don't think this will be ruled on by SCOTUS as a 2A case. It will be ruled on as a commerce case, and Remington will win based on that. The issue of it being firearm-related will be in there, of course, but it won't be the factor that matters. This is about business, and how much it will cost, and where things will go if the case is really allowed to proceed. Just my 2 cents, of course, and I could be completely wrong.

[The Annoyed Man]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 162168002/

HARTFORD, Conn. – Gunmaker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

So starts the full-court press. SCOTUS is more important than ever.

The court said the could sue...but the court has not said that they would win...

Given “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts’ record in recent years concerning other lefty treasures like the ACA, are you completely willing to put your trust in his wisdom?

I don't think this will be ruled on by SCOTUS as a 2A case. It will be ruled on as a commerce case, and Remington will win based on that. The issue of it being firearm-related will be in there, of course, but it won't be the factor that matters. This is about business, and how much it will cost, and where things will go if the case is really allowed to proceed. Just my 2 cents, of course, and I could be completely wrong.

The ACA case wasn’t a firearms case either. It was a commerce and tax law case....and the commies won, thanks to Justice Roberts. They won, because the court accepted the statist notion that the Constitution can be perverted to enforce ideology. Again, are you confident that Remington would win?

[Deltaboy]

I am not worried about it!

[K.Mooneyham]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 162168002/

HARTFORD, Conn. – Gunmaker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

So starts the full-court press. SCOTUS is more important than ever.

The court said the could sue...but the court has not said that they would win...

Given “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts’ record in recent years concerning other lefty treasures like the ACA, are you completely willing to put your trust in his wisdom?

I don't think this will be ruled on by SCOTUS as a 2A case. It will be ruled on as a commerce case, and Remington will win based on that. The issue of it being firearm-related will be in there, of course, but it won't be the factor that matters. This is about business, and how much it will cost, and where things will go if the case is really allowed to proceed. Just my 2 cents, of course, and I could be completely wrong.

The ACA case wasn’t a firearms case either. It was a commerce and tax law case....and the commies won, thanks to Justice Roberts. They won, because the court accepted the statist notion that the Constitution can be perverted to enforce ideology. Again, are you confident that Remington would win?

No, I am not confident on anything these days. In fact, perhaps SCOTUS won't even hear the case, because they seem to shy away from things involving firearms these days. However, IF they decided to hear it, their wish to not touch firearms law these days might push them to see this as merely a business case. Again, I stated that I could be completely wrong.

[srothstein]

I think the more accurate relation would be, could a family sue Annheiser Busch, Jim Beam, or Jose Quervo because a family member was killed in a drunk driving crash. How about Ford, GM or BMW because they all create cars that travel fast enough to kill a person (speed is at least advertised).

I think you have hit on the proper analogy. Dodge likes to advertise their cars as performance cars, even showing them racing. Many other companies do similar things. If a person driving a Dodge is street racing and loses control, causing an accident, can I sue Dodge because their marketing convinced him to buy a performance car and drive in excess of his abilities? The driver was committing a crime but the marketing helped convince him to use that specific tool for that crime. Does it change the fact that he wanted to commit the crime and might have chosen a different tool for it if that one had not been marketed that way?

I hope it doesn't ever happen, but it could be an interesting court case to see.

[WildBill]

I think the more accurate relation would be, could a family sue Annheiser Busch, Jim Beam, or Jose Quervo because a family member was killed in a drunk driving crash. How about Ford, GM or BMW because they all create cars that travel fast enough to kill a person (speed is at least advertised).

I think you have hit on the proper analogy. Dodge likes to advertise their cars as performance cars, even showing them racing. Many other companies do similar things. If a person driving a Dodge is street racing and loses control, causing an accident, can I sue Dodge because their marketing convinced him to buy a performance car and drive in excess of his abilities? The driver was committing a crime but the marketing helped convince him to use that specific tool for that crime. Does it change the fact that he wanted to commit the crime and might have chosen a different tool for it if that one had not been marketed that way?

I hope it doesn't ever happen, but it could be an interesting court case to see.

I just can't fathom this rational. I would really like to read the lawyer's briefs and the entire court decision.

[crazy2medic]

I think the more accurate relation would be, could a family sue Annheiser Busch, Jim Beam, or Jose Quervo because a family member was killed in a drunk driving crash. How about Ford, GM or BMW because they all create cars that travel fast enough to kill a person (speed is at least advertised).

I think you have hit on the proper analogy. Dodge likes to advertise their cars as performance cars, even showing them racing. Many other companies do similar things. If a person driving a Dodge is street racing and loses control, causing an accident, can I sue Dodge because their marketing convinced him to buy a performance car and drive in excess of his abilities? The driver was committing a crime but the marketing helped convince him to use that specific tool for that crime. Does it change the fact that he wanted to commit the crime and might have chosen a different tool for it if that one had not been marketed that way?

I hope it doesn't ever happen, but it could be an interesting court case to see.

I just can't fathom this rational. I would really like to read the lawyer's briefs and the entire court decision.

To make the scenario more accurate, your father bought the car for it's performance, so you kill him and steal his car, then you use the car for street racing and lose control killing a bunch of kids in a school bus, the parents of said bus sue the car manufacturer!

[Iunnrais]

And to take the analogy further, if the Manufacturer can be sued over the marketing content, would not that also open up the Advertising company that designed the Ads and the Media companies that carried them?

I think the more accurate relation would be, could a family sue Annheiser Busch, Jim Beam, or Jose Quervo because a family member was killed in a drunk driving crash. How about Ford, GM or BMW because they all create cars that travel fast enough to kill a person (speed is at least advertised).

I think you have hit on the proper analogy. Dodge likes to advertise their cars as performance cars, even showing them racing. Many other companies do similar things. If a person driving a Dodge is street racing and loses control, causing an accident, can I sue Dodge because their marketing convinced him to buy a performance car and drive in excess of his abilities? The driver was committing a crime but the marketing helped convince him to use that specific tool for that crime. Does it change the fact that he wanted to commit the crime and might have chosen a different tool for it if that one had not been marketed that way?

I hope it doesn't ever happen, but it could be an interesting court case to see.

[dlh]

Remember-it was a 4-3 decision and could have easily gone the other way.
In my opinion the 4 justices were engaging in some result-oriented thinking along the lines of---our children were murdered...somebody should pay....where is the deep pocket?....ah...Remington! Then they wrote the opinion accordingly. Cynical?, yes. Does it happen? You betcha.