United States & Gun Control discussion.

Centermass

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
3,052
Location
Whoville
Supreme Court Rules Newtown Shooting Victims Can Sue Remington

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected a Hail Mary appeal from Remington Arms, which was founded over 200 years ago and claims to be the oldest gun manufacturer in the U.S. The gunmaker had asked the high court to hear its case after the Connecticut Supreme Court greenlit a lawsuit to hold the company accountable for the massacre that left 20 young children and six adults dead in Newtown, Connecticut.


Well, this just opened up a whole new can of worms. A nasty, funky crappy can of worms. I was always under the impression that there were some on the bench with a modicum of common sense and intelligence, who would stay true to the constitution. As it stands now, I'm sure everyone in the gun industry, including Remington, are wondering how soon before they're out of business.


This sucks
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
14,916
Location
Not Afghanistan
It's enlightening how people who have spent very long times interpreting the law (please read this as a rejection of the notion of "one true constitutional interpretation) lack intelligence when they don't end up with the same legal analysis as non-lawyers.

The legal question is: The Connecticut Supreme Court below held that the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses all general statutes merely capable of being applied to firearms sales or marketing. In contrast, both the Second and Ninth Circuits have rejected this broad interpretation of the predicate exception, which would swallow the PLCAA’s immunity rule. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384, 402-403 (2d Cir. 2008); Ileto, 565 F.3d at 1134, 1136. And the Ninth Circuit interpreted the predicate exception even more narrowly than the Second Circuit. See ibid.
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).

Moreover, Conn. is fighting this as a State's rights issue if I read this correctly:
"Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior. Following a scrupulous review of the text and legislative history of PLCAA, we also conclude that Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to extinguish the traditional authority of our legislature and our courts to protect the people of Connecticut from the pernicious practices alleged in the present case".

Docket for 19-168
Minus the opening jab at barracks lawyers, I've read this four times and still don't understand your post.
 

Gunz

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
7,297
Location
Decisive Terrain
Thanks ^^^ ;-)

SCOTUS has tossed the hot potato back to CT where emotions still run high, as you'd expect, even years after the horrific event. Adam Lanza robbed people of their chance for revenge so retribution has to take another form, even if it's based on various technicalities. I have a feeling they will get their pound of flesh from Remington in the end.

Considering Lanza's reported obsession with Call of Duty and other violent video games, I'm surprised they haven't gone after Activision and others. Maybe that's the next step.
 
Last edited:

Box

Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
733
Going after the video game manufacturer only concedes what some folks have said all along - so dont expect anti-gun activists to put their efforts into going after violent video games - because anti-gunners have already said video games dont cause violence
-guns cause violence

This is the left we are dealing with - the science is settled
 

lindy

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
5,104
Location
On the move
As our esteemed colleague from 3/75 has noted, this appears to be about emotions and there is all kinds a spin related to SCOTUS‘ denial to review. That’s it. The Court simply indicated the issue is either “not ripe yet” or there isn’t a national issue (yet).

I had to go through two pages of Google to find a conservative viewpoint (that in itself is...interesting).

The lawsuit against Remington alleges that the company’s marketing practices contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre. “Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” a lawyer for the plaintiffs said. But it is not clear that Remington courted Lanza at all — and it is quite clear that the company never courted him successfully, inasmuch as he stole the Bushmaster rifle he used in the crimes from his mother, whom he murdered. Connecticut has a law against “unfair trade practices,” which is a very odd way of looking at a mass murder.
From the State ruling:

The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42–110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users.
The Bogus Lawsuit against Remington | National Review

Personally, I think Thomas and Kavanaugh are eager to solidify Heller precedent of “in common use“ as well as what limits are placed on the right of self defense (inside the home has been resolved but anywhere else?). The case against Remington seems to target SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons vice a company and Remington is merely the target because they made the weapon used by psycho. If psycho highjacked a bus full of elementary students and drove it off a cliff, I doubt they would sue Blue Bird.
 

lindy

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
5,104
Location
On the move
Speaking to your thoughts about Thomas and Kav. wanting to solidify Heller, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I wonder if this case, as you said isn't as "ripe" as they would like the case to be. Although, some ripe cases are still ruled on by SCOTUS very narrowly.

Even though SCof CT. voted that Rem. can be sued I think Cox has an uphill battle even in a more liberal sided court.
Regarding ripeness, I think they wait until until a case has been adjudicated before accepting it. Here, it seems the question has been procedural vice substantive. Agree the arguments will be interesting especially linking the killings specifically to Remington vice any other manufacturer.

I believe the 2nd amendment was trying prohibit exactly what CT is trying to do: allow a government to have a class of weapons out of reach of a citizen.
 
Top