Lawsuit threatens Remington

[BLADEMDA]

The SCOTUS really let me down. They refused to hear the case of Remington whose AR15 was used in the Sandy Hook Massacre. This means the lawsuits can now proceed against Remington. While I deplore mass shootings and the killer the manufacturer of the AR15 should not be held liable.

Supreme Court refuses to hear Remington’s appeal in lawsuit from Sandy Hook victims

The Supreme Court has refused to listen to the appeal of gunmaker Remington in the 2014 lawsuit brought forward by a survivor and families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting.

thehill.com

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Gunmaker Rejected as Supreme Court Lets Sandy Hook Families Sue

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the gun industry, refusing to block a lawsuit against Remington Arms Co. by family members of nine people killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[Mikkel]

It's going to trial, this is the right decision.

 

[BLADEMDA]

www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-supreme-court-denies-cert-in-remington-suit-connecticut-case-will-go-forward/

 

[BLADEMDA]

It's going to trial, this is the right decision.

No, it is not. Do you know who actually purchased that AR15? Do you know who actually sold that AR15? Are you aware that the purchaser knew the shooter was unhinged? Remington did nothing wrong here as this is a blatant attempt to screw over a gun manufacturer because the people of Connecticut hate AR15s.

First, they sue the manufacturer of AR15s. next up are handguns which have a magazine greater than 10 bullets. Finally, even my Ruger six shooter is sued out of existence even if that gun was stolen by the shooter prior to committing an act of violence.

 

[chocomorsel]

Good.!!!

 

[BLADEMDA]

Any semi-automatic rifle or carbine can inflict massive casualties against an unarmed group of people. There is nothing special about an AR15 vs other semi-automatic rifles. I guess Russian made AK-47s and those eastern European copies won't be getting sued. Good luck convincing Putin his buddies need to pay any restitution. You can ban the AK-47 but you won't be suing the manufacturer. This is a blatant attempt to ban AR15s and other weapons through the legal system which has been off the rails for decades now.

 

[Mikkel]

No, it is not. Do you know who actually purchased that AR15? Do you know who actually sold that AR15? Are you aware that the purchaser knew the shooter was unhinged? Remington did nothing wrong here as this is a blatant attempt to screw over a gun manufacturer because the people of Connecticut hate AR15s.

First, they sue the manufacturer of AR15s. next up are handguns which have a magazine greater than 10 bullets. Finally, even my Ruger six shooter is sued out of existence even if that gun was stolen by the shooter prior to committing an act of violence.

It's a bulls*** lawsuit that Remington will win.

 

[DrGasPasser]

I’m going to sue Ford because a drunk driver used a Mustang driven at a high rate of speed to kill my mom. Nobody needs a car that can drive 150 mph...

 

[Hamhock]

I’m going to sue Ford because a drunk driver used a Mustang driven at a high rate of speed to kill my mom. Nobody needs a car that can drive 150 mph...

Was that Ford Mustang advertised and promoted as a vehicle designed to travel at 150 mph when drunk?

I think the "hidden agenda" of the lawsuit is not really hidden, but the lawsuit is not about the manufacture and sale of the firearm. It is more about how the firearm was promoted.

You may not see the distinction, but it's there. The question needs to be answered (probably in favor of gun companies). If I was a gun enthusiast, I would actually want this case to proceed as much as the plaintiffs want it. This is a new issue that needs to be settled.

As a "gun agnostic", I find it particularly interesting.

HH

 

[Merely]

Good I hope all gun manufacturers go out of business, so stupid that people are obsessed with guns..nowhere but America

 

[nimbus]

Good I hope all gun manufacturers go out of business, so stupid that people are obsessed with guns..nowhere but America

Here’s another one. Nothing to do with Remington or AR15’s but caught my eye because dad is an anesthesia pain doc. This country is nuts. Some other countries have more violence but they tend to be impoverished 3rd world countries. We have no excuse. It has even crossed my mind that we should limit gun ownership to women and old men. Seems like young men just can’t handle it.

Brandon Theesfeld: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Brandon Theesfeld has been arrested in the murder of University of Mississippi student Ally Kostial. She was found shot dead on July 20.

www.google.com

 

[GravelRider]

I’m going to sue Ford because a drunk driver used a Mustang driven at a high rate of speed to kill my mom. Nobody needs a car that can drive 150 mph...

There is not a lot of information in the article and it is somewhat misleading. The lawsuit is more about how the gun is advertised. Gun manufacturers are still protected from liability when their products are used to kill. This case is about how Remington advertised their product.

I, too, am relatively “gun agnostic” in that I don’t have strong feelings about the issue. However, I absolutely despise how guns are marketed nowadays and I will be watching this case with interest.

 

[Mikkel]

Good I hope all gun manufacturers go out of business, so stupid that people are obsessed with guns..nowhere but America

Politicians, rich people, get to have guns for protection. I guess Nancy Pelosi is "obsessed" with guns too according to your logic.

But the law abiding citizens who need guns for self protection should have their rights stripped away from them?

 

[BLADEMDA]

There is not a lot of information in the article and it is somewhat misleading. The lawsuit is more about how the gun is advertised. Gun manufacturers are still protected from liability when their products are used to kill. This case is about how Remington advertised their product.

I, too, am relatively “gun agnostic” in that I don’t have strong feelings about the issue. However, I absolutely despise how guns are marketed nowadays and I will be watching this case with interest.

The buyer at that Ar-15 was female and likely never saw any ad campaign. This lawsuit is groundless on the merits as the killer was not the legal owner or purchaser of the weapon in question.

 

[DrGasPasser]

Was that Ford Mustang advertised and promoted as a vehicle designed to travel at 150 mph when drunk?

I think the "hidden agenda" of the lawsuit is not really hidden, but the lawsuit is not about the manufacture and sale of the firearm. It is more about how the firearm was promoted.

You may not see the distinction, but it's there. The question needs to be answered (probably in favor of gun companies). If I was a gun enthusiast, I would actually want this case to proceed as much as the plaintiffs want it. This is a new issue that needs to be settled.

As a "gun agnostic", I find it particularly interesting.

HH

Was the gun advertised by Remington to be used in an unlawful manner?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Was that Ford Mustang advertised and promoted as a vehicle designed to travel at 150 mph when drunk?

I think the "hidden agenda" of the lawsuit is not really hidden, but the lawsuit is not about the manufacture and sale of the firearm. It is more about how the firearm was promoted.

You may not see the distinction, but it's there. The question needs to be answered (probably in favor of gun companies). If I was a gun enthusiast, I would actually want this case to proceed as much as the plaintiffs want it. This is a new issue that needs to be settled.

As a "gun agnostic", I find it particularly interesting.

HH

So, I can commit a crime (felony) and steal a car then drive it recklessly because of an ad campaign? All is can say is "wow" in how far a jury must be to the left to buy any of this crap.

 

[Mikkel]

Was that Ford Mustang advertised and promoted as a vehicle designed to travel at 150 mph when drunk?

I think the "hidden agenda" of the lawsuit is not really hidden, but the lawsuit is not about the manufacture and sale of the firearm. It is more about how the firearm was promoted.

You may not see the distinction, but it's there. The question needs to be answered (probably in favor of gun companies). If I was a gun enthusiast, I would actually want this case to proceed as much as the plaintiffs want it. This is a new issue that needs to be settled.

As a "gun agnostic", I find it particularly interesting.

HH

Remington didn't advertise guns as weapons to be used against innocents en masse.

The comparison is perfectly valid, cars are not meant to be used unlawfully, but when they are used unlawfully then the manufacturer is not liable.

 

[Mikkel]

Was the gun advertised by Remington to be used in an unlawful manner?

Nope.

Remington did not advertise that their guns should be used unlawfully.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Good I hope all gun manufacturers go out of business, so stupid that people are obsessed with guns..nowhere but America

Here you go. Ferrari (ticker RACE) needs to be sued by you. Go get 'em.

 

[Mikkel]

Why aren't alcohol manufacturers sued by DUI victims? Surely they share responsibility for intoxicating criminals?

 

[nimbus]

Here you go. Ferrari (ticker RACE) needs to be sued by you. Go get 'em.

That’s what track days are for....to play with your Ferrari lawfully. Guess that’s analogous to taking your gun to the range.

 

[GravelRider]

The buyer at that Ar-15 was female and likely never saw any ad campaign. This lawsuit is groundless on the merits as the killer was not the legal owner or purchaser of the weapon in question.

That doesn’t mean the shooter didn’t see the ad campaign.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Nobody needs 707 HP cars. So, if your teenager steals your Hellcat then kills grandma I think you should sue FCA for making a dangerous product.

 

[Mikkel]

That doesn’t mean the shooter didn’t see the ad campaign.

So you're claiming that Remington's ad agency is guilty of "inciting violence"? That's a bizarre accusation to make against a corporate advertising agency. Who did the ads? They're responsible for the murders of those kids.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I have no issue if the citizens of California, New York or Connecticut want to "ban" super Horsepower cars for safety reasons. But, for a Supreme Court to allow the company to be sued for an advertising campaign to promote a lawful product is preposterous. I would even go so far as to say if Remington truly promoted violence or illegal use of its products then by all means hold them accountable. That isn't what this lawsuit is all about.

 

[GravelRider]

So, I can commit a crime (felony) and steal a car then drive it recklessly because of an ad campaign? All is can say is "wow" in how far a jury must be to the left to buy any of this crap.

The analogies to cars don’t work and are silly. The purpose of a car is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Maybe having some responsibility on how these weapons are marketed would be a good thing.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The analogies to cars don’t work and are silly. The purpose of a car is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Maybe having some responsibility on how these weapons are marketed would be a good thing.

Sorry, but the video I posted clearly promotes the Hellcat as able to go 196 mph. The video appears to promote "lawless" street driving way beyond any posted speed limits. This means if your teenager dies while driving a Hellcat at 190 mph around a curve you have the same rights to sue FCA as those suing Remington.

This line of thinking is why there is no longer "personal responsibility" in our society. A product which is lawful and safe did not kill or harm anyone.

Again, if you don't like AR-15s then ban them. If you don't like street legal racing machines with 700+ HP ban them as well or limit the HP.

 

[chocomorsel]

Someone please close this thread. We can all see where it’s going.

 

[GravelRider]

I have no issue if the citizens of California, New York or Connecticut want to "ban" super Horsepower cars for safety reasons. But, for a Supreme Court to allow the company to be sued for an advertising campaign to promote a lawful product is preposterous. I would even go so far as to say if Remington truly promoted violence or illegal use of its products then by all means hold them accountable. That isn't what this lawsuit is all about.

You need a license for a car. You need to pass an exam to get that license. That license is the sound of that liability being passed on to you. There are no licenses for guns. Do you want gun licenses?

 

[Mikkel]

The analogies to cars don’t work and are silly. The purpose of a car is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Maybe having some responsibility on how these weapons are marketed would be a good thing.

No, the purpose of a gun is to mechanically actuate an explosive primer which ignites powder to propel a projectile forward. What the bearer does with that device is the responsibility of the bearer.

The purpose of a car is to mechanically actuate a drive mechanism to propel metal in any direction, what the driver does with that is the responsibility of the driver.

This is simple stuff.

 

[Mikkel]

Someone please close this thread. We can all see where it’s going.

Reelection of Trump because liberal politicians and judges want to strip rights away from law abiding citizens?

 

[Mikkel]

You need a license for a car. You need to pass an exam to get that license. That license is the sound of that liability being passed on to you. There are no licenses for guns. Do you want gun licenses?

The right to bear arms is protected by the US Constitution. It is a right.

There is no right to driving a car.

 

[Merely]

Politicians, rich people, get to have guns for protection. I guess Nancy Pelosi is "obsessed" with guns too according to your logic.

But the law abiding citizens who need guns for self protection should have their rights stripped away from them?

dude no other country has the amount of gun death we have..no other country has our absurd gun laws..just stop

 

[BLADEMDA]

You need a license for a car. You need to pass an exam to get that license. That license is the sound of that liability being passed on to you. There are no licenses for guns. Do you want gun licenses?

I have a license to carry my friend. If you want more gun control in Connecticut pass laws. SCOTUS has upheld the second amendment so this recent decision to permit the Supreme Court of Connecticut to allow the lawsuit against Remington really was a surprise.

 

[BLADEMDA]

dude no other country has the amount of gun death we have..no other country has our absurd gun laws..just stop

That's fine vote for Sanders and get legislation passed banning the AR15 and AK47. That's how the system is supposed to work in the USA.

 

[Mikkel]

dude no other country has the amount of gun death we have..no other country has our absurd gun laws..just stop

Have you heard the expression "comparing apples to oranges"?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even if I was against the purchase/owning of AR15s I would still follow the Federal law passed in 2005. Mark my words that if liberals succeed in banning AR15s I will obey the law even if I disagree with it.


In October 2016, a Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturer (Remington), the wholesale distributor, and the retailer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting. Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the suit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[18] However, on March 14th, 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling, allowing plaintiffs to continue their suit against Remington.[19]

 

[d9sccr]

I imagine there will be plenty of panic AR-esque purchases made as this case comes into the public eye...may be time to invest in Remington if you’re into that sort of thing.

 

[dannyboy1]

Good. Cigarette manufacturers got sued and had to pay. Also pharmaceutical companies are having to pay for opioid overdoses. I don’t agree with the first two but if they can be held liable, why not gun manufacturers. I’m conservative on most things but the fact that any random dude off the street can purchase high power, semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines is completely fu(king insane. How many mass shootings do we need to prove this point!!!!! And don’t start with the “if you make guns illegal then only criminals will have them nonsense. Can you name one senseless mass shooting that was done by a drug cartel or inner city gang member. It is always some young usually middle class loner who is a few fries short of a happy meal, that purchases his gun legally. If there were no legal market for assault rifles he would not have access to them. You want a bolt action hunting rifle, no problem, handgun for personal protection, fine ( with strict background checks and a limited capacity magazine) but this idea that anyone can buy assault rifles is insane and killing us.

 

[DrGasPasser]

dude no other country has the amount of gun death we have..no other country has our absurd gun laws..just stop

Incorrect. Mexico has much more stringent gun laws than America and still has 25 murders per 100,000. America’s murder rate is 5 per 100,000. I could play this game with you all day with plenty of other countries with strict gun laws, but Mexico should be of particular interest since it is on our southern border and the major supplier of contraband to our country.

That is to say, people who advocate “ending the war on drugs” need to think long and hard before advocating for the ban on semiautomatic firearms. Holding those two positions is completely inconsistent.

 

[nimbus]

Incorrect. Mexico has much more stringent gun laws than America and still has 25 murders per 100,000. America’s murder rate is 5 per 100,000. I could play this game with you all day with plenty of other countries with strict gun laws, but Mexico should be of particular interest since it is on our southern border and the major supplier of contraband to our country.

That is to say, people who advocate “ending the war on drugs” need to think long and hard before advocating for the ban on semiautomatic firearms. Holding those two positions is completely inconsistent.

It’s true Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras have much higher gun violence rates than we do. Those people walking thousands of miles in the caravans were literally trying to save their own lives and the lives of their children. Most of the guns in Central America come from the United States because we have the laxest gun laws so it’s easy for straw buyers to get them here and pass them on for profit. They export strawberries, Volkswagens and meth. We export guns. It helps our trade balance.

 

[dannyboy1]

Incorrect. Mexico has much more stringent gun laws than America and still has 25 murders per 100,000. America’s murder rate is 5 per 100,000. I could play this game with you all day with plenty of other countries with strict gun laws, but Mexico should be of particular interest since it is on our southern border and the major supplier of contraband to our country.

That is to say, people who advocate “ending the war on drugs” need to think long and hard before advocating for the ban on semiautomatic firearms. Holding those two positions is completely inconsistent.

Are you kidding me!!! Mexico might have strict laws on the books but it has no effective law enforcement!! The cartels are stronger then the cops. Just look at what happened last two weeks ago with el chapos son. Also in Mexico, for better or worse the killings are usually targeted, and for some reason. In this country you can just be going about your business, in a safe neighborhood, or sending your kids to a nice school and you and they may be killed by some random nutjob.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Good. Cigarette manufacturers got sued and had to pay. Also pharmaceutical companies are having to pay for opioid overdoses. I don’t agree with the first two but if they can be held liable, why not gun manufacturers. I’m conservative on most things but the fact that any random dude off the street can purchase high power, semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines is completely fu(king insane. How many mass shootings do we need to prove this point!!!!! And don’t start with the “if you make guns illegal then only criminals will have them nonsense. Can you name one senseless mass shooting that was done by a drug cartel or inner city gang member. It is always some young usually middle class loner who is a few fries short of a happy meal, that purchases his gun legally. If there were no legal market for assault rifles he would not have access to them. You want a bolt action hunting rifle, no problem, handgun for personal protection, fine ( with strict background checks and a limited capacity magazine) but this idea that anyone can buy assault rifles is insane and killing us.

I was told by my father in 1976 that cigarettes cause cancer. My dad was a simple man with barely a high school education but even he knew cigarettes caused cancer. So, you can believe the lawyers did some good by stealing billions of dollars but the facts are very different. The public was well aware smoking killed.

This current case against Remington is judicial activism at its worst. Liberals who know the legislature won’t act turn to activist judges to do it for them. If you can’t ban a product then sue the manufacturer. I have little faith in a liberal Connecticut jury to find the facts among the rhetoric. The case itself has no standing because the advertising didn’t lead to the purchase of the weapon. The killer had no right to use the weapon and was mentally unstable.

FYI, I can easily give up my AR15. I have many other guns which I prefer over my AR15. But, I know the attempt to destroy my second amendment rights won’t stop with my AR15.

 

[Hamhock]

Was the gun advertised by Remington to be used in an unlawful manner?

I don't know. That's what this case is about and part of why I find it interesting.
There is certainly a disagreement about this advertising -- that's why it's going to court. If the question were already answered, we wouldn't need this case.
That's why I am a bit surprised that the "gun enthusiasts" aren't also enthusiastic about this case. (and the eventual appeals)
HH

 

[dannyboy1]

I was told by my father in 1976 that cigarettes cause cancer. My dad was a simple man with barely a high school education but even he knew cigarettes caused cancer. So, you can believe the lawyers did some good by stealing billions of dollars but the facts are very different. The public was well aware smoking killed.

This current case against Remington is judicial activism at its worst. Liberals who know the legislature won’t act turn to activist judges to do it for them. If you can’t ban a product then sue the manufacturer. I have little faith in a liberal Connecticut jury to find the facts among the rhetoric. The case itself has no standing because the advertising didn’t lead to the purchase of the weapon. The killer had no right to use the weapon and was mentally unstable.

FYI, I can easily give up my AR15. I have many other guns which I prefer over my AR15. But, I know the attempt to destroy my second amendment rights won’t stop with my AR15.

I don’t agree with the lawsuits against cigarette makers, nor with the attempt to hold drug manufacturers responsible for opioids. Personal responsibility. (I’ll believe it’s an “epidemic” when an addict sneezes and I catch an overdose ). With guns random nutjobs with access to assault rifles can kill me and my family. In principle I agree, that manufactures should not be responsible for what someone does with a legally purchased product, but at this point, whatever works.

 

[BLADEMDA]

“But the American political left doesn’t want to really ban these guns, they just want to punish people who buy them, companies that make them, and politicians who support the Constitutional right to own them. This is why we’re seeing Walmart (where I’d never, ever, buy pistol ammunition) quitting selling certain ammunition and guns. It’s why Dick’s Sporting Goods stopped selling guns. It’s why the next wave will be pressuring banks to stop servicing merchant credit card accounts for gun sellers.”

What Would Happen If America Banned AR-15s? - The Resurgent

This is a thought experiment, so don't @ me. The results are entirely predictable, which is why the left isn't serious about an "assault weapon" ban.

theresurgent.com

 

[T-burglar]

Many people understand operating a vehicle at high speeds and can do it safely, but we have speed limits because when those who can’t be that responsible get behind the wheel they could kill others.

THATS the car analogy. We have limits because the average of the population can’t be trusted. Take away assault rifles, you don’t have the right to own them because they are too dangerous. Just like you don’t have the right to drive at high speeds on a shared road.

There is no other way to look at it. There is no argument for the American public to own assault rifles.

 

[Hamhock]

I don’t agree with the lawsuits against cigarette makers

The cigarette makers weren't penalized for selling cancer sticks. They were penalized for lies, obfuscations and attempts to hide or destroy the evidence/research (often their own!) showing that cigarettes were cancer sticks and that some techniques of manufacture increased the toxicity and addictive nature intentionally -- thereby harming and probably killing many more people than was necessary.

They were penalized for intentionally limiting people to make responsible decisions as adults....limiting personal responsibility.

Even the most hardcore libertarians and free-marketers are on board with this.

There may be similar malfeasance in the opioid industry and -- much less likely -- even the firearm industry. This has yet to be determined.

HH

 

[chocomorsel]

Incorrect. Mexico has much more stringent gun laws than America and still has 25 murders per 100,000. America’s murder rate is 5 per 100,000. I could play this game with you all day with plenty of other countries with strict gun laws, but Mexico should be of particular interest since it is on our southern border and the major supplier of contraband to our country.

That is to say, people who advocate “ending the war on drugs” need to think long and hard before advocating for the ban on semiautomatic firearms. Holding those two positions is completely inconsistent.

Jesus. Mexican cartels get their guns and ammo from Amurrca!!! Hello! In exchange for supplying our drugs!
And since when is Mexico considered on the same league as the US? As in, is it a first world country?
How about we compare apples to apples? Sure let’s compare ourselves with one of the most dangerous countries in this hemisphere. OK.
@Arch Guillotti, please shut this thing down.