TexasCHLforum.com

I guess I am in the majority here, but I don't think SCOTUS was wrong in their ruling. I actually do not think they had any choice but to deny certiorari. The federal law says gun manufacturers cannot be sued unless they violated a state or federal law. The plaintiffs alleged that Remington violated Connecticut state law on marketing practices, at least in part by targeting children through the placement of their firearm in violent video games. The Conn Supreme Court ruled that there was enough evidence to conclude that Remington had violated the state law. SCOTUS will almost always defer to the state Supreme Court on questions of interpreting state law, so they agreed it violated state law and the lawsuit could go forward.

Now the plaintiffs must actually advance a theory of liability and then prove it. I doubt they can do so, but I could be wrong. If they did, the analogy would be to suing the auto manufacturer when someone in an illegal street race causes an accident and hurts another person. The whole purpose of lawsuits like this is not really to win from the gun manufacturers but to cost them money fighting it so they will get discouraged and stop making guns.The federal law recognized this attempt at gun control and was passed just to stop this.

This now leaves one problem. A gun manufacturer must now know the laws for the federal government and all 50 states plus the territories. Not just the manufacturing and firearms laws, but all marketing practice regulations also. For example, in this case, Remington can fight the actual theory of liability advanced or can argue in the court trial that they did not violate the state marketing laws after all. I would expect both defenses to be used and that they will win one or both arguments.