Court rules for Newtown Parents. Remington Lawsuit

Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,219
Likes
5,675
Location
My forest stronghold
The Supreme Court ruled against Remington again. Does this mean the lawsuit will continue?

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 court did not rule on anything here, they merely decided not to take up an issue at this time. And they did so without any dissent or other comment. I don't know of many, or even any, PLCAA cases that have gotten this far. The court doesn't see it's job as righting every wrong or saving every kitten in the shelter. We may very well see more of these cases before the court feels a need sort things out. One questionable outcome is not going to make them jump into the fray.

Also, this and other PLCAA cases are not constitutional cases. There was no constitutional issue at stake. This was a case of statutory interpretation. The petition asked one question:

The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a).
And offered three reasons supporting the granting of cert:
  1. The Decision Below Exacerbates An Acknowledged Division Of Authority
  2. The Decision Below Is Wrong
  3. This Case Is An Attractive Vehicle To Resolve An Important And Recurring Issue
Notice that petitioners did not lead with 'the decision was wrong'. I'm not surprised as the QP was kind of wonky.

The full docket including petition, response, replay and amici briefs is here: Search
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,152
Likes
12,940
Location
western mass
The court did not rule on anything here, they merely decided not to take up an issue at this time. And they did so without any dissent or other comment. I don't know of many, or even any, PLCAA cases that have gotten this far. The court doesn't see it's job as righting every wrong or saving every kitten in the shelter. We may very well see more of these cases before the court feels a need sort things out. One questionable outcome is not going to make them jump into the fray.

Also, this and other PLCAA cases are not constitutional cases. There was no constitutional issue at stake. This was a case of statutory interpretation. The petition asked one question:

And offered three reasons supporting the granting of cert:
  1. The Decision Below Exacerbates An Acknowledged Division Of Authority
  2. The Decision Below Is Wrong
  3. This Case Is An Attractive Vehicle To Resolve An Important And Recurring Issue
Notice that petitioners did not lead with 'the decision was wrong'. I'm not surprised as the QP was kind of wonky.

The full docket including petition, response, replay and amici briefs is here: Search


I think it's safe to say that any victory over Remington would be limited in scope to CT because of the way the CT law is written. It on the other hand would embolden the anti's to write new state level laws in every state where a gun manufacturer is located and use that as a vehicle to bury the manufacturers in lawsuits.

Of course, all of this is QED since there was no suit in court. It still remains to be seen how a jury would handle the suit. For all I know the Newtown people can still lose anyways. If they do win well then maybe there is a question of federalism?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,680
Likes
5,977
Location
Worcester, MA
Why is something an Assault Rifle (even the full auto guns that we "assault rifles" before evolving usage of the work changed the meaning, even if we don't like it) just because of its characteristics even if it has never been used in an assault, but a weapon does not become a "murder weapon" until it is used to kill someone?
Because "murder" is the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought. Since you cannot establish intent until the act it should simply be a "homicide weapon". [devil]
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,130
Likes
1,544
Location
SoNH
Why is something an Assault Rifle (even the full auto guns that we "assault rifles" before evolving usage of the work changed the meaning, even if we don't like it) just because of its characteristics even if it has never been used in an assault, but a weapon does not become a "murder weapon" until it is used to kill someone?
Well, Sturmgewehr, the name of the pioneering semi-automatic carbine design upon which both US and East Bloc post-WWII semi-automatic carbines were at least loosely based, translates to "assault rifle." Words actually have meaning, so I don't buy into the firearm prohibitionists' drama-enhanced definition of "assault rifle" you have adopted. There is an actual definition of assault rifle. But more to the point, there are things called "light machine guns" (LMGs), as exemplified by the M249, Lewis Gun, and Degtyaryov. Are we also to say "light machine gun" is a meaningless term because, at its core, an M249 is just a rifle? No thanks; I'm good with valid technical terms being employed since they are descriptive and more accurate.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
41,989
Likes
22,458
For all I know the Newtown people can still lose anyways. If they do win well then maybe there is a question of federalism?
Remember Voir Dire is french for "Jury stacking" (quoting an NES member)

1. You can count on gun owners or, at minimum, anyone who owns an EBR or has a CCW, being excluded from the jury due to potential bias.

2. You can count on persons with school age children being welcomed onto the jury due to potential bias.

As to SCOTUS Cert - It takes a vote of 4 justices to grant cert to a case.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,219
Likes
5,675
Location
My forest stronghold
I was just about to post this article. It's well worth the read.

The key point here is not that Remington lost the lawsuit and the Sandy Hook plaintiffs won, it merely that the suit can proceed. The CT Supreme Court ruling was narrow and only that the suit could go forward.

The crux of that argument is the suit’s assertion that Remington’s advertising of AR-style rifles glamorized them, making as the tool of choice for deranged attackers.
Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled- very narrowly- that liability was existent because Remington’s advertising “could be” violating state fair trade laws.

The “could be” is the key in this case.

Looking at the petition in this context, it's not surprising that SCOTUS passed on it for now. The issue still could come back.....
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
41,989
Likes
22,458
English is an evolving language and unlike the French (Academie Francais) we do not have an official referee. Although we do not like it, Assault Rifle is now defined to include semi-auto look-alikes according to Merriam Webster. So, we can either understand how the language is actually used, or pretend that the dictionary is wrong and does not reflect common usage of the word.

This reminds me of the military types who claim that Webster's definition of "civilian" is wrong.

I suppose someone could argue that the dictionary is wrong and "gay" means "happy" or "joyous" rather than meaning "homosexual". They would have been right in the gay nineties, but would be wrong now.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,130
Likes
1,544
Location
SoNH
English is an evolving language and unlike the French (Academie Francais) we do not have an official referee. Although we do not like it, Assault Rifle is now defined to include semi-auto look-alikes according to Merriam Webster. So, we can either understand how the language is actually used, or pretend that the dictionary is wrong and does not reflect common usage of the word.

This reminds me of the military types who claim that Webster's definition of "civilian" is wrong.

I suppose someone could argue that the dictionary is wrong and "gay" means "happy" or "joyous" rather than meaning "homosexual". They would have been right in the gay nineties, but would be wrong now.
Dictionaries can be wrong about technical terms. This tends to happen when they are dealing with technical/trade terms of the type dictionary wonks don't understand. You can, of course, adopt _their_ definition of assault rifle to comport with that of firearm prohibitionists. I'll decline and agree to disagree with placating the whingerati.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,130
Likes
1,544
Location
SoNH
The court did not rule on anything here, they merely decided not to take up an issue at this time. And they did so without any dissent or other comment. I don't know of many, or even any, PLCAA cases that have gotten this far. The court doesn't see it's job as righting every wrong or saving every kitten in the shelter. We may very well see more of these cases before the court feels a need sort things out. One questionable outcome is not going to make them jump into the fray.

Also, this and other PLCAA cases are not constitutional cases. There was no constitutional issue at stake. This was a case of statutory interpretation. The petition asked one question:

And offered three reasons supporting the granting of cert:
  1. The Decision Below Exacerbates An Acknowledged Division Of Authority
  2. The Decision Below Is Wrong
  3. This Case Is An Attractive Vehicle To Resolve An Important And Recurring Issue
Notice that petitioners did not lead with 'the decision was wrong'. I'm not surprised as the QP was kind of wonky.

The full docket including petition, response, replay and amici briefs is here: Search
It _is_ amazing how wrong firearm forums are getting this. The media's headlines are misleading.
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
12,121
Likes
6,175
Location
Ma.
I suppose someone could argue that the dictionary is wrong and "gay" means "happy" or "joyous" rather than meaning "homosexual". They would have been right in the gay nineties, but would be wrong now.
The definition of gay has more than 1 meaning so they wouldn't be wrong but most people would not consider that definition unless they're on the older side of life. It still has the happy or joyous meaning. It also has the meaning of referring to homosexuality and it also has been used as meaning stupid. Ex: That's so gay. I'd say the media created and pushed the "homosexual" definition, similar to how they push the "regulated" definition that's used today instead of how "regulated" was used in the 1700's.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,130
Likes
1,544
Location
SoNH
The definition of gay has more than 1 meaning so they wouldn't be wrong but most people would not consider that definition unless they're on the older side of life. It still has the happy or joyous meaning. It also has the meaning of referring to homosexuality and it also has been used as meaning stupid. Ex: That's so gay. I'd say the media created and pushed the "homosexual" definition, similar to how they push the "regulated" definition that's used today instead of how "regulated" was used in the 1700's.
So that begs the question: are firearm owners to accept that due to "evolving language" we no longer adhere to the 18th-century intent of "regulated" as used the text of 2A? I'm going with no.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
1,748
Likes
2,035
Location
Central Ma.
It doesn’t really matter to the antis that they might lose, what this does is open up an avenue for lawsuits. Part of the game plan is to use the courts to bleed gun manufacturers dry. It’s what the law in question was designed to try and prevent.
CORRECT! They are playing the long game just like the rest of the Dems/Libs. They have the lamestream media on their side and tons of money from the Brady Bunch, Bloomberg and Soros. Obama populated the courts with Dem ideologues/Judges who want to "CHANGE" society just like Barry promised. Trump is doing his best to appoint Conservative Judges but Barry did significant damage which was his plan. Eric Holder has taken up the cause of trying to re-establish Dems supremacy in State govts/courts.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,863
Likes
757
Does denial of cert even count as a "ruling"?
Not technically, but the ones that brought the suit are counting this as a 'moral' victory. And as you can see from 7 pages here, this forum thinks of it as a loss.

Our legal system allows anyone to bring a suit. Whether or not you win it is a different story, but if you have the $, easy to file. SC ruling or lack of taking it is not surprising from a legal point of view.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
41,989
Likes
22,458
So that begs the question: are firearm owners to accept that due to "evolving language" we no longer adhere to the 18th-century intent of "regulated" as used the text of 2A? I'm going with no.
This argument is a strawman of a red herring, even though the later at one time referred to a fish, and the former can also refer to an effigy in a farmer's field.

Evolving language does not erase contemporaneous meaning, and most often the dictionary editors respond by adding the new meaning, not replacing the old. Such is the case for the Webster definitions of Gay, Civilian, Assault Rifle and Regulated.

Even for words no longer used, linguists recognize the meaning in the context of period writings, ere thee would have trouble understanding thou, thy and thine.
 
Last edited:

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
19,897
Likes
14,731
Location
Jambi
If those spoon fed idiots are the ones making our laws then we have a problem. Ffs I don’t agree with that argument but that doesn’t mean it’s not compelling to a whole lot of people who aren’t as informed or simply don‘t care as much about the issue as we do. So go ahead and post your Fudd pic, waive the Gadsden flag and shout “Shall Not Be Infringed!” and pretend that’ll fix our problems. Remington ran idiotic ads and now we’re about to be beaten over the head with them, but you’re not a Fudd... congratulations :rolleyes:
I am not pretending. You must be angry? and by the way ! I am on our side. So give it a rest.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,130
Likes
1,544
Location
SoNH
This argument is a strawman of a red herring, even though the later at one time referred to a fish, and the former can also refer to an effigy in a farmer's field.

Evolving language does not erase contemporaneous meaning, and most often the dictionary editors respond by adding the new meaning, not replacing the old. Such is the case for the Webster definitions of Gay, Civilian, Assault Rifle and Regulated.

Even for words no longer used, linguists recognize the meaning in the context of period writings, ere thee would have trouble understanding thou, thy and thine.
The people whose new definition of "assault rifle" you're excusing disagree with you. With regard to 2A, for example, they have simply willed "regulated" to be equivalent to their late-20th-century concept of regulation and do not accept it ever carried meaning contemporaneous with the era in which 2A was written. Thus as they will, apparently with the help of firearm owners, get away with equating semi-automatic carbine with "assault rifle" and, by extension, semi-automatic with automatic. This is right out of the VPC playbook, and it's working.
 

rsj

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
415
Likes
169
The people whose new definition of "assault rifle" you're excusing disagree with you. With regard to 2A, for example, they have simply willed "regulated" to be equivalent to their late-20th-century concept of regulation and do not accept it ever carried meaning contemporaneous with the era in which 2A was written. Thus as they will, apparently with the help of firearm owners, get away with equating semi-automatic carbine with "assault rifle" and, by extension, semi-automatic with automatic. This is right out of the VPC playbook, and it's working.
Yes, and the English language is being destroyed by these marxist types who have crept into academia and are rewriting everything.
Do we have to accept our own destruction like cattle? Some people think so.
 
Top Bottom