Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

[Tommy Tainant]

How was the gun misused ? It did what it was made to do.

It wasn't 'made' to kill children and innocent souls and also it was never advertised to do so.

Who was it meant to kill then ?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun. From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"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.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle. IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind. Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.

The problem with this as I see it is that, however Remington marketed the gun, that is not evidence or proof that Lanza even saw the advertisements or acted because of them. Also, the Remington didn't even belong to him and it was right there in the home, making it a weapon of convenience. What was he going to do, go and pay $800 for a new one when there was one right there? I don't think so. I would say that marketing was not a factor here in any way whatsoever.

This whole case stinks and should have been tossed out at the beginning.

This isn't about the merits of the case...this is simply setting the precedent that gun makers can be sued for anything.....and allowing left wing, democrat, anti-gun lawyers sue them into obedience......forcing them to stop making guns for civilians. The democrats want to take every gun maker to court, cost them millions and discourage them from resisting....since fighting back will put them out of business...this should have been squashed at the state level.....

Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.

If you look at gun control advocates' arguments from a critical thinking perspective, they simply don't stand up and collapse under their own weight. If it was about reducing the number of deaths, they would go after other, worse causes than firearms such as motor vehicle deaths. At the very least they would go after handguns more rigorously than AR-15s as handguns constitute the majority of firearm deaths.

People like this don't give two shits about people dying. What they care about is how they die.

 

[Leo123]

How was the gun misused ? It did what it was made to do.

It wasn't 'made' to kill children and innocent souls and also it was never advertised to do so.

Who was it meant to kill then ?

Read Remington's advertisement (on which the suit is now based) and, which I published and linked to in the OP's article. Show where it says the gun was meant to kill children and innocent souls.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How was the gun misused ? It did what it was made to do.

It wasn't 'made' to kill children and innocent souls and also it was never advertised to do so.

Who was it meant to kill then ?

No one.

This is a false premise, a premise not shared by gun enthusiasts because they don't purchase them to kill people.

 

[Mac-7]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

This is sad news for liberty

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.

If you look at gun control advocates' arguments from a critical thinking perspective, they simply don't stand up and collapse under their own weight. If it was about reducing the number of deaths, they would go after other, worse causes than firearms such as motor vehicle deaths. At the very least they would go after handguns more rigorously than AR-15s as handguns constitute the majority of firearm deaths.

People like this don't give two shits about people dying. What they care about is how they die.

It's about more than that.

Ultimately, the desire to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep and bear arms is driven by motives and desires, which, if acted upon, would give these citizens just cause to use these arms to oppose those so acting.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun. From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"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.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle. IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind. Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.

The problem with this as I see it is that, however Remington marketed the gun, that is not evidence or proof that Lanza even saw the advertisements or acted because of them. Also, the Remington didn't even belong to him and it was right there in the home, making it a weapon of convenience. What was he going to do, go and pay $800 for a new one when there was one right there? I don't think so. I would say that marketing was not a factor here in any way whatsoever.

This whole case stinks and should have been tossed out at the beginning.

This isn't about the merits of the case...this is simply setting the precedent that gun makers can be sued for anything.....and allowing left wing, democrat, anti-gun lawyers sue them into obedience......forcing them to stop making guns for civilians. The democrats want to take every gun maker to court, cost them millions and discourage them from resisting....since fighting back will put them out of business...this should have been squashed at the state level.....

Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.

If you look at gun control advocates' arguments from a critical thinking perspective, they simply don't stand up and collapse under their own weight. If it was about reducing the number of deaths, they would go after other, worse causes than firearms such as motor vehicle deaths. At the very least they would go after handguns more rigorously than AR-15s as handguns constitute the majority of firearm deaths.

People like this don't give two shits about people dying. What they care about is how they die.

A well written response..Thanks.

I think you're in the right area with your analysis. This is being treated in the same tort model as won against big tobacco.

About changing a way of life? Maybe, maybe not--I've been country all my life...and as long as I can get a gun when I want one...I'm cool. I like it when any huge business takes it in the shorts. Taking them down as peg..as long as my 2nd is intact....is fine with me. I don't foresee a gun shortage any time soon!

Redneckery is alive and well..trust me on this!

ROTFLMAO Guns are not the be-all and the end-all of rural culture. This is a tempest in a teapot, I think

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.

If you look at gun control advocates' arguments from a critical thinking perspective, they simply don't stand up and collapse under their own weight. If it was about reducing the number of deaths, they would go after other, worse causes than firearms such as motor vehicle deaths. At the very least they would go after handguns more rigorously than AR-15s as handguns constitute the majority of firearm deaths.

People like this don't give two shits about people dying. What they care about is how they die.

It's about more than that.

Ultimately, the desire to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep and bear arms is driven by motives and desires, which, if acted upon, would give these citizens just cause to use these arms to oppose those so acting.

If that was what was happening..I'd be right beside you on the line---but it isn't..really.
The right for gun companies to be immune from lawsuit has nothing to do with the amount of, or type of, guns available. Not for the foreseeable future, IMO. Nor does it impact the 2nd amendment. Our right to bear arms is not being infringed. You might want to ask yourself, "Am I shilling for the gun companies?"

It's 70-30 that the companies win anyway.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ultimately, the desire to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep and bear arms is driven by motives and desires, which, if acted upon, would give these citizens just cause to use these arms to oppose those so acting.

If that was what was happening..I'd be right beside you on the line---but it isn't..really.
The right for gun companies to be immune from lawsuit has nothing to do with the amount of, or type of, guns available. Not for the foreseeable future, IMO. Nor does it impact the 2nd amendment. Our right to bear arms is not being infringed. You might want to ask yourself, "Am I shilling for the gun companies?"

It's 70-30 that the companies win anyway.

Denying the obvious truth will not make it go away.

It's a fact—those of you who want to disarm law-abiding citizens have malicious reasons for wanting to do so. You are willfully, openly on the side of tyrants and violent criminals, and against that of law-abiding citizens. Who do you think you are fooling when you try to claim otherwise?

 

[whitehall]

I wonder if the S.C. will allow law suits against automobile companies when cars are used in criminal acts.

 

[Aletheia4u]

I think that this is a good thing. Having corporations to be held liable when their products causes physical injury or death to an individual or to the environment. Now this should open up doors to make vaccines makers and chemicals companies to be responsible for their products instead of having Tax-payers to be held liable.



The United States Supreme Court dismissed a request by Remington Arms to block a lawsuit filed by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre.

While a 2005 law shields gun manufacturers from liability when their weapons are used to commit crimes, lawyers for the families argue that a loophole in the law allows them to seek damages from Remington. They claimed that the gun manufacturer marketed the gun “as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings.”

Earlier in the year, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a divided opinion that the family members were “entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations.” That decision overturned a lower court's decision that found Remington was shielded from the wrongful death lawsuit. Supreme Court Will Allow Sandy Hook Families To Sue Remington Arms | iHeartRadio


Supreme Court Deals 2nd Amdt A Mortal Wound

(AP) WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a federal law prohibits lawsuits against drug makers over serious side effects from childhood vaccines.



The court voted 6-2 against the parents of a child who sued the drug maker Wyeth in Pennsylvania state court, for the health problems they say their daughter, now 19, suffered from a vaccine she received in infancy.

The ruling was a stinging defeat for families dissatisfied with how they had fared before a special no-fault vaccine court.
Supreme Court vaccine ruling: parents can't sue drug makers for kids' health problems Supreme Court vaccine ruling: parents can't sue drug makers for kids' health problems


New Supreme Court Ruling Protects Makers of Generic Drugs | Frank M. Eidson P.A. | Orlando Workers Comp Lawyer | Free Case Review

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.

And so what about vaccines makers?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.

And so what about vaccines makers?

Non sequitur. Sorry, but vaccines don't kill people nearly as much as guns do. If you are talking about vaccines POSSIBLY causing autism, again, sorry, because they are still trying to figure if it is real or not. Not vaccinating your kids is dangerous not only to your kids, but to the population at large.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So can I sue Craftsman if I use one of their screwdrivers to kill someone?

Misusing a stolen device is no reason to sue the maker of that device.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So can I sue Craftsman if I use one of their screwdrivers to kill someone?

Misusing a stolen device is no reason to sue the maker of that device.

Wrong. If you use a screwdriver to kill your neighbor, then your neighbors relatives can sue. You can't. You're the one that committed the crime.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So can I sue Craftsman if I use one of their screwdrivers to kill someone?

Misusing a stolen device is no reason to sue the maker of that device.

Wrong. If you use a screwdriver to kill your neighbor, then your neighbors relatives can sue. You can't. You're the one that committed the crime.

So you think they should be able to sue a screwdriver manufacturer if someone misuses their product?

 

[Aletheia4u]

Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.

And so what about vaccines makers?

Non sequitur. Sorry, but vaccines don't kill people nearly as much as guns do. If you are talking about vaccines POSSIBLY causing autism, again, sorry, because they are still trying to figure if it is real or not. Not vaccinating your kids is dangerous not only to your kids, but to the population at large.

A Botched Vaccine Campaign For Measles Killed 15 Children in South Sudan

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.

And so what about vaccines makers?

Non sequitur. Sorry, but vaccines don't kill people nearly as much as guns do. If you are talking about vaccines POSSIBLY causing autism, again, sorry, because they are still trying to figure if it is real or not. Not vaccinating your kids is dangerous not only to your kids, but to the population at large.

A Botched Vaccine Campaign For Measles Killed 15 Children in South Sudan

You should read your own link. It wasn't because the vaccination itself was dangerous, it was because the vaccines were mishandled and were not properly refrigerated. Sorry, but food can become dangerous if left un refrigerated for a couple of hours. If you don't believe that, then at your next BBQ, leave the potato salad made with mayo out in the sun for a couple of hours before eating. Guarantee it will at a minimum make you sick. If it's bad enough, it can kill you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You should read your own link. It wasn't because the vaccination itself was dangerous, it was because the vaccines were mishandled and were not properly refrigerated. Sorry, but food can become dangerous if left un refrigerated [sic] for a couple of hours. If you don't believe that, then at your next BBQ, leave the potato salad made with mayo out in the sun for a couple of hours before eating. Guarantee it will at a minimum make you sick. If it's bad enough, it can kill you.

And then, by the logic that we're seeing in this thread from those on the left wrong, you should be able to sue the manufacturer of that mayonnaise.