If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS March Giveaway ***Multi-Firearms***
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by VTski4x4, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:11 PM.
This is NOT good.
Court rules Newtown families can proceed with lawsuit against Remington
So I guess I’m good to go with my lawsuit against Ford and Nissan for the fatal accident where my passenger was killed due to someone texting and driving ? This is the most ridiculous lawsuit I’ve ever heard of and has political bullshit written all over it
I hope when this goes to SCOTUS they rain down on Connecticut with Fire and Fury as Trump would say. This is Crap!
I'm banning Newtown, CT.
It's for the children...
Don't forget Apple or Android for having the tech to text on the phones.... unreal
And the wireless provider.
And the person who they were texting. They new the driver was operating vehicle while texting and continued
No kidding. I can’t wrap my head around how this is valid. Even if I were not a firearm owner I can’t see it. This means despite the product not failing or how it is used ,
Yes. And according to AOC the banks that finance them as well (based on her questioning of the Wells Fargo CEO in regards to the keystone pipeline). To take it a step further if the person who caused you this was driving a GM vehicle then you should be able to sue the federal government because after all they bailed them out so it’s like financing them in certain ways.
Basically you've got a majority of judges that are just a-holes.
"Yeah, we decided that they can ignore federal law."
I honestly don't understand how people can manage the mental contortions to come up with this sort of ruling.
Can you sue Victorinox when someone uses one of their kitchen knives for a murder? Can you sue Titleist when someone misuses a golf club?
Of course you can't, because those would both be obviously stupid.
Even in the case of drunk driving you can't sue Jack Daniel's, and you can only sometimes sue the bar that served the drunk!
4/3 ruling. I can’t imagine this holding up going forward. CT is giving the 9th Circuit a run for their money.
So f*** PLCAA I guess, right? Cos, feelz trump lawz.
"The families are grateful that our state’s Supreme Court has rejected the gun industry’s bid for complete immunity, not only from the consequences of their reckless conduct but also from the truth-seeking discovery process. The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety. Today’s decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal.”
The families are grateful that the court ruled not to follow the letter nor the spirit of the Federal law
In that RI nightclub fire everybody got sued, but they all settled. I think Heineken got sued because their name was on the coasters.
NB: From a very cursory glance (on a call ATM), it appears that CT is using it's version of 93A to end run the FPA.
What a crap ruling. Where will it end?
Since when does a state level court even have the jurisdiction to rule on a federal statute such as the PLCAA???
Connecticut Supreme Court.... Did you expect a different ruling?
Wasn’t there a similar suit a couple of years ago and plaintiff had to pay all the legal fees when it was thrown out?
Never mind I get it, the MA AG’s BS “consumer protection” statute.
Somebody should point out to these folks that the survivors of one of the Aurora CO theater victims wound up owing about a quarter $million to the lawyers representing the ammo company they sued and lost.
Edit: Snapshot types faster. Yep, but that was a federal court. Remington has deep pockets and plenty of lawyers. Popcorn time.
I am curious why the family wasn't sued they were the actual cause. If this was to be upheld forget everything known to man being manufactured again. You could sue Ticonderoga if someone killed you with a pencil.
Deeper pockets? Another agenda?
Yup, the goal is to flood the news with as much anti-gun bias as possible, even if it is a losing cause, to brainwash the populous to concede to "no more guns". Kind of like the commercials and subliminal ads on television.
Well the lower court probably wanted it off their desk. So now it’s a clean break for them.
I'd bill half to the 4 half-wits that voted to let this proceed.
Separate names with a comma.