TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus ... er-proceed

In an order released Tuesday, the Supreme Court allowed families of Sandy Hook victims to proceed with a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms...

"The decision will have immediate and severe consequences, exposing the firearms industry to costly and burdensome litigation," Remington argued in its petition to the Supreme Court. "Thus, as a leading scholar on firearm-manufacturer liability has explained, the decision below will 'unleash a flood of lawsuits across the country,'" it continued, citing Timothy D. Lytton, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.

Justice gone awry.
The Texas Supreme Court would have quickly tossed the Sandy Hook case had that happened here.
Three of the seven judges on the Connecticut Supreme Court did not believe the case should have proceeded.
Do not see how the plaintiffs in the case can prove that Remington's marketing caused Adam Lanza to steal his mother's AR15
and commit those heinous murders at the school.
Hope Remington fights the case hard on the merits and wins--it should, unless there are some facts I am not aware of. Would hate to see it dole out money to settle a frivolous suit.
Case should have been disposed of on summary judgement grounds in favor of Remington. Just my opinion.

Well, good thing we have that Trump-packed SCOTUS to protect our 2A rights.

I'm not a lawyer... but it looks to me that SCOTUS only ruled to not take up the case since it hasn't been through the courts yet. That is disappointing - because each court along the way should have tossed out the case against the manufacturer. However, I don't think it is unusual for them to not take up a case that hasn't been litigated.

If lower courts do later rule that a company can be liable not for the product, but the misuse of it, and that is not reversed - that will open Pandora's box of liability for every manufacturer to be liable for a product they make that is used and someone is harmed in some way. Every company in America should be afraid of this. So I guess I might be able to file suit against for McDonalds for them making me overweight.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:23 pm Well, good thing we have that Trump-packed SCOTUS to protect our 2A rights.

2 is not a majority.

How did Gorsuch and Kavanaugh vote re Cert?

taken to a logical conclusion, can car makers be sued when a car is stolen and wrecked, with injuries?

tomneal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:17 pm taken to a logical conclusion, can car makers be sued when a car is stolen and wrecked, with injuries?

Theoretically yes. But Plaintiffs would be unlikely to prevail. There are a few products that have partial Federal statutory exemptions from State lawsuits. Firearms and FDA regulated drugs come to mind. The exemptions are not absolute, but I think the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act was one of the better ones. I also think SCOTUS got it wrong, but alas, DJT didn't appoint me.

Without much info, whay I understand is all that this "ruling" does is tell the parties that the supreme court will not hear the appeal of a ruling to throw out rhe case. It could very well be the SCOTUS wants to hear the case itself and rule on the validity/constitutionality of the law itself. Another option is that they felt this matter was less important than matters like can transgender albino birds with a disability that trigger a camera own the copyright to the image...

G.A. Heath wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:32 pm Without much info, whay I understand is all that this "ruling" does is tell the parties that the supreme court will not hear the appeal of a ruling to throw out rhe case. It could very well be the SCOTUS wants to hear the case itself and rule on the validity/constitutionality of the law itself. Another option is that they felt this matter was less important than matters like can transgender albino birds with a disability that trigger a camera own the copyright to the image...

I curious, how much was he exposed to Remington's advertising, compared to the time he spent on violent video games?

Boxerrider wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:25 pm I curious, how much was he exposed to Remington's advertising, compared to the time he spent on violent video games?

oh for the love......violent video games have nothing to do with it

it's all about valuing life. Now, you can say it's about how much time they spend playing the games, but that's different. My kids played games, and yeh, some of them were/are pretty violent, they are well adjusted young adults.

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.

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:48 pm

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:23 pm Well, good thing we have that Trump-packed SCOTUS to protect our 2A rights.

2 is not a majority.

How did Gorsuch and Kavanaugh vote re Cert?

I’d like to know how the justices voted as well. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find much on the Supreme Court’s website other than a simple denial to hear the case, which is what normally happens to the overwhelming majority of cases that petition the court for review:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 9-168.html

I’m curious to know which justices voted to hear it and which ones didn’t.

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:00 pm 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.

Sometimes the actual law is inconvenient. The lawsuit is a sham, but sometimes SCOTUS must rule based on the law. and their own jurisdiction. We would be the first to complain if the Supreme Court stepped out of bounds for a decision we don't agree with.

SewTexas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:13 pm

Boxerrider wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:25 pm I curious, how much was he exposed to Remington's advertising, compared to the time he spent on violent video games?

oh for the love......violent video games have nothing to do with it

it's all about valuing life. Now, you can say it's about how much time they spend playing the games, but that's different. My kids played games, and yeh, some of them were/are pretty violent, they are well adjusted young adults.

My son is 26 and I consider him well adjusted. He has almost always played video games, probably the same ones as yours. The games were entertainment, like movies or books. Most of his life was, and still is, family, school, and work.
I believe multiple factors contributed to Lanza's decision to commit his crimes. He obsessed over the Columbine shooting, and he immersed himself in violent games, including at least one where the player is a school shooter. We have seen delusional murderers who claimed the influence of music or movie/television, and so I wouldn't say video games have nothing to do with it.
We can't legislate in good parenting, and we can't legislate out psychological disorders. I am a supporter of the first amendment as well, and believe the software developers and mass media outlets have the same freedoms, and responsibilities, as the firearm manufacturers. My perspective on the lawsuit is that the plaintiffs are targeting firearms, not honestly evaluating the situation. I'll also admit a curiosity about the source of their legal funding.
Full disclosure - I have a strong dislike for all frivolous and/or misguided lawsuits. It's frequently not a case of recovering damages from the responsible party, but profiting from suing the party who is either the most vulnerable or has the deepest pockets.