Court rules for Newtown Parents. Remington Lawsuit

mikeyp

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14,140
Likes
27,276
Location
Plymouth
Isn't there an actual law that prevents these lawsuits though? The way I'm reading it is SCOTUS didn't actually vote on the constitutionality of said law?
 

spt_1955

NES Member
Rating - 100%
128   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
1,757
Likes
567

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
Isn't there an actual law that prevents these lawsuits though? The way I'm reading it is SCOTUS didn't actually vote on the constitutionality of said law?

Not good at all! :mad:


The justices rejected an appeal from Remington Arms that argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes.

The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public. Gunman Adam Lanza used it to kill 20 first graders and six educators. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. Lanza was 20 years old.


‘‘The families are grateful that the Supreme Court upheld precedent and denied Remington’s latest attempt to avoid accountability,’’ said Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families.

‘‘We are ready to resume discovery and proceed towards trial in order to shed light on Remington’s profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users at the expense of Americans’ safety,’’ he said.

Messages seeking comment were left with a lawyer for Remington Arms on Tuesday.

The Connecticut Supreme Court had earlier ruled 4-3 that the lawsuit could proceed for now, citing an exemption in the federal law. The decision overturned a ruling by a trial court judge who dismissed the lawsuit based on the 2005 federal law, named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The federal law has been criticized by gun control advocates as being too favorable to gun-makers. It has been cited by other courts that rejected lawsuits against gun-makers and dealers in other high-profile shooting attacks, including the 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting and the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings in 2002.

The National Rifle Association, 10 mainly Republican-led states and 22 Republicans in Congress were among those urging the court to jump into the case and end the lawsuit against Remington.
 

amm5061

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
7,550
Likes
6,183
Location
Holliston, MA
The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public. Gunman Adam Lanza used it to kill 20 first graders and six educators. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. Lanza was 20 years old.

First of all, he stole the firearm from his mother. The deceptive advertising argument should be completely thrown out as he never purchased it to begin with! Once that goes, PLCAA shields Remington from the rest.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,680
Likes
5,977
Location
Worcester, MA
The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public.

That is a matter of argument, but the law says otherwise.
It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.
HIGHLY unlikely to be the case. Unfortunately, it is more likely that this case, if allowed to proceed, will not be ruled by law.
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
That is a matter of argument, but the law says otherwise.

HIGHLY unlikely to be the case. Unfortunately, it is more likely that this case, if allowed to proceed, will not be ruled by law.


This case presents a nationally important question on which courts are divided regarding the scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq. (“PLCAA”). Enacted in 2005, “[t]he PLCAA generally preempts claims against manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition resulting from the criminal use of those products.” Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2009); see 15 U.S.C. §§ 7902, 7903(4)-(5). This case concerns the scope of an exception to PLCAA immunity for “action in which a manufacturer or seller of a [firearm or ammunition] knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii). “This exception has come to be known as the ‘predicate exception,’” because a plaintiff must present “a knowing violation of a ‘predicate statute.’” Ileto, 565 F.3d at 1132.

In a sharply divided 4-3 decision, a bare majority of the Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted the predicate exception broadly, held that CUTPA qualified as a predicate statute, and allowed the case to proceed. Although the majority purported to find support in the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2008), it acknowledged that “federal courts” have faced “difficulties * * * in attempting to distill a clear rule or guiding principle from the predicate exception,” Op. 156-157 (Ex. 1), noting that in Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009), “the Ninth Circuit construed the predicate exception more narrowly” than the Second Circuit, Op. 125 n.47 (Ex. 1). And while the majority ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs, it acknowledged that Remington’s interpretation of the PLCAA’s text was “not implausible.” Id. at 118. Justices Robinson, Vertefeuille, and Elgo dissented, “conclud[ing] that the predicate exception encompasses only those statutes that govern the sale and marketing of firearms and ammunition specifically, as opposed to generalized unfair trade practices statutes” like CUTPA. Id. at 162.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
30,774
Likes
23,767
Nice, now the next time some driver in a sports car hits me I guess this means I can sue the manufacturer because of the targeted marketing.

At least that's how I'm reading it.

As long as they market the car as fast. (Insert your favorite hater comment on some sort of fast car.)


The families should lose with prejudice - HIS MOMMY BOT THE GUN! But the suit shouldn't move forward in the first place. Period. The time for common sense is over. :(
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
12,075
Likes
6,354
Isn't there an actual law that prevents these lawsuits though? The way I'm reading it is SCOTUS didn't actually vote on the constitutionality of said law?
The way I understand it, this isn't a PLCAA issue. They're suing based on some Connecticut law that says you can't promote violence in advertising products and Remington had an ad that explicitly portrayed/described the rifle as being good for killing your enemies.
 

Whutmeworry

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,937
Likes
1,158
Location
NOT 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue anymore!!!!
The way I understand it, this isn't a PLCAA issue. They're suing based on some Connecticut law that says you can't promote violence in advertising products and Remington had an ad that explicitly portrayed/described the rifle as being good for killing your enemies.
I’m as concerned as anyone else about this turn of events, but we should keep in mind that SCOTUS only agrees to hear roughly 1 out of every 100 (maybe it’s even less now) cases that are appealed to it. Hopefully they take the next one that is similar to it. That said, I’m not overly confident with Roberts as the Chief Justice.😐
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
As long as they market the car as fast. (Insert your favorite hater comment on some sort of fast car.)


The families should lose with prejudice - HIS MOMMY BOT THE GUN! But the suit shouldn't move forward in the first place. Period. The time for common sense is over. :(

And that is exactly what I am concerned about! Historically common sense returned only after a major pain! [wink]
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,680
Likes
5,977
Location
Worcester, MA
Apparently, advertisements like this are being used as an example. I don't see anything that I would consider inappropriate. Tacticoolie perhaps, but not out of line. Here's the thing though: Tacticoolie is okay. This is what this is all about. 2A guarantees your ability to punch holes in more then just paper when the need arises. If Tacticoolie advertising is a basis for an unfair advertising suit, then all defensive pistol ads are included too.
Bushmaster.jpg
 
Last edited:

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
The way I understand it, this isn't a PLCAA issue. They're suing based on some Connecticut law that says you can't promote violence in advertising products and Remington had an ad that explicitly portrayed/described the rifle as being good for killing your enemies.

CT is the most progressive (craziest) from all states when it comes to a law. Followed by CA, MA, NJ, NY and IL. Laws first implemented in these "progressive" states get usually implemented by the rest of our country in the next 6-8 years. The longest "adoption" is in Texas.

In 6-8 years we better have this all gone or we better have a different country. [devil2]
 

Buck F

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
5,540
Likes
8,465
Location
SE MA
I’m as concerned as anyone else about this turn of events, but we should keep in mind that SCOTUS only agrees to hear roughly 1 out of every 100 (maybe it’s even less now) cases that are appealed to it. Hopefully they take the next one that is similar to it. That said, I’m not overly confident with Roberts as the Chief Justice.😐

There is no hopefully here, this is awful. This precedent will now apply to any future cases before SCOTUS ever hears another similar one. It will also embolden others to file similar claims.

We can all discuss the merits of the case: Lanza didn't buy the gun so advertising didn't affect him, etc. but the merits don't matter, all that matters now is what the jury says matters and that will most likely will end with eight or nine zeros after it. Remington is screwed as are the rest of the gun manufacturers.
 
Last edited:

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
Apparently, advertisements like this are being used as an example. I don't see anything that I would consider inappropriate. Tacticoolie perhaps, but not out of line.
Bushmaster.jpg

Unfortunately that is you.......Majority of this country was already converted to sheep who panic when sheep dog turns his head chasing a flee. They think wolf must be around the corner.
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
There is no hopefully here, this is awful. This precedent will now apply to any future cases before SCOTUS ever hears another similar one. It will also embolden others to file similar claims.

We can all discuss the merits of the case: Lanza didn't buy the gun so advertising din't affect him, etc. but the merits don't matter, all that matters now is what the jury says matters and that will most likely will end with eight or nine zeros after it. Remington is screwed as are the rest of the gun manufacturers.

THIS!
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,680
Likes
5,977
Location
Worcester, MA
Unfortunately that is you.......Majority of this country was already converted to sheep who panic when sheep dog turns his head chasing a flee. They think wolf must be around the corner.
Added more in the edits above.

The question is, and should be, does this and other advertisements promote illegal conduct? Stating the rifle is "mission ready/capable" is not positioning it for an illegal purpose.
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
Added more in the edits above.

The question is, and should be, does this and other advertisements promote illegal conduct? Stating the rifle is "mission ready/capable" is not positioning it for an illegal purpose.

There is no politician in the world who would like sheep getting ready for some "mission". This is why smart manufacturers avoid such statements. Sheep are still allowed to protect their homes and hunt. That is about it. Everything else is NOT WELCOME.
 

Buck F

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
5,540
Likes
8,465
Location
SE MA
Apparently, advertisements like this are being used as an example. I don't see anything that I would consider inappropriate. Tacticoolie perhaps, but not out of line. Here's the thing though: Tacticoolie is okay. This is what this is all about. 2A guarantees your ability to punch holes in more then just paper when the need arises. If Tacticoolie advertising is a basis for an unfair advertising suit, then all defensive pistol ads are included too.
Bushmaster.jpg

Using the term "Combat" (Adaptive Combat Rifle) will come back to bite them and the rest of us in the ass. Nobody needs a combat rifle... blah blah blah. Playing the "Assault" rifle/weapon misnomer turnaround won't work when the freakin' manufacturer calls it an Adaptive Combat Rifle.
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
Using the term "Combat" (Adaptive Combat Rifle) will come back to bite them and the rest of us in the ass. Nobody needs a combat rifle... blah blah blah. Playing the "Assault" rifle/weapon misnomer turnaround won't work when the freakin' manufacturer calls it an Adaptive Combat Rifle.

Correct. If sheep wants combat it should sign up with police or military.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,680
Likes
5,977
Location
Worcester, MA
Bushmaster should put out a new ad with a person holding the rifle upright, stock on the ground and a kitty rubbing against it. For all of its useful purposes, kittys also love it.
 

Buck F

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
5,540
Likes
8,465
Location
SE MA
Correct. If sheep wants combat it should sign up with police or military.

"In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' "

Yeah, I'd say the days of correcting people on the mis-use of the term "Assault Rifle" are over.
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
33,353
Likes
37,467
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
"In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' "

Yeah, I'd say the days of correcting people on the mis-use of the term "Assault Rifle" are over.

What would happen to your LTC Application if you would state on it that you are planning to eliminate "the forces of opposition"?
 

El_Guapo77

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
1,382
Likes
1,046
Location
Somerville, Ma
Time to sue bars and any place that sells alcohol when a drunk driver kills or hurts someone. Along with the maker of the beverage, along with the company that delivered it. etc.. Also tool makers for such dangerous devices. Knife makers, baseball bat makers, the list just goes on and on.

Sadly i came up with this example when trying to have a conversation with one of my friends on Facebook and was immediately attacked by other commenters
 
Top Bottom