TexasCHLforum.com

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.

This is like a carpenter suing a hammer manufacturer because he smashed his thumb. Absolutely ridiculous.

Why don't the victims and their families hold the actual shooter responsible for the murders??? This is so wrong. Liberals in Action!

I am so sick and tired of reading about liberals, progressives, etc. passing the buck on who is responsible and accountable for evil. Look at Jussie Smollett, the gay black man that cried wolf and is now facing 16 felonies. He gave the brothers a check to beat him up and he got caught. All, I read now is how Jussie is really the victim of society. No, he's an adult that knows right from wrong that tried to exploit racial tension in the country for his personal gain. He is no different than any other con-artist.

[End Rant]

Good luck with that. Again, the only ones getting rich off this is going to be the lawyers.

So when can I sue Budweiser for getting the driver drunk that hit me?

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:24 pm 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.

So was the GOP House, Senate, and POTUS that passed that federal law in 2005 and installed the last two SCOTUS justices. Votes matter.

The end is nigh. I'm glad Mrs. Oldgringo and I were able to observe our 77th birthday's last month, together on the road, in our legally armed but modest RV.

Good luck, y'all.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:24 pm 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.

Good luck to the plaintiff, and they better start a go fund me to pay Remingtons legal fees. Thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act this is going nowhere. It was written to prevent frivolous lawsuits just like this one. The Sandy Hook murderer stole the guns relieveing Remington from any culpability. Zero standing for a lawsuit.

Here's another article on the same topic:

The statutory issue is whether violation of a state consumer protection statute by a gun manufacturer satisfies the exception for protection as a predicate act. The CT Supreme Court ruling that such a consumer protection violation was a predicate act would eviscerate the effectiveness of the PLCAA. As the NY Times describes, the consumer protection theory was that the AR-15 was marketed in a way that made it likely troubled people like Lanza would use the gun to commit a crime

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/c ... remington/

Such bull, ridiculous the crap that goes on.

The attack on the rule of law, U.S. Constitution, natural rights, and democracy is proceeding according to plan I guess...

The marketing rationale used by the Connecticut Supreme Court is laughably absurd.
Can I sue the spinning reel company when I do not catch a fish?
Can I sue the barbell company when I do not get the six-pack abs?
Can I sue the car company when I do not get the beautiful blonde?
And so on.
Hopefully the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case and toss this frivolous litigation.

dlh wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:51 pm The marketing rationale used by the Connecticut Supreme Court is laughably absurd.
Can I sue the spinning reel company when I do not catch a fish?
Can I sue the barbell company when I do not get the six-pack abs?
Can I sue the car company when I do not get the beautiful blonde?
And so on.
Hopefully the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case and toss this frivolous litigation.

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).

Adam Lanza did not purchase the gun himself! He murdered his own mother and stole her guns
So how exactly does the marketing of the rifle play into that scenario???

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:24 pm 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...