Jump to content
Sniper

Conn. Supreme Court Landmark Sandy Hook Ruling

Recommended Posts

1. The State court had jurisdiction to hear this case because it was brought by the plaintiffs under a State statute and federal law was only raised as a defense.

2. The federal Appeals Court has no jurisdiction over this case because Federal Courts of Appeal, with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court do not review decisions of State  Supreme Courts.

3. State courts do and frequently interpret federal law, when federal law is raised as a defense, especially federal pre-emption issues. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide questions of pre-emption and immunity on appeal from a State Supreme Court decision. It is possible that the defense may seek review now in the U.S. Supreme Court. The problem is that this suit was brought under an exception in the federal statute and it is debatable if the exception applies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, remixer said:

Sure its bad press but it's also important to make those who bring these type of suits pay... it's the only way to stop the insanity.

Insanity

That is what it's become.

Goes back to the point I made the other day, we need to find a way to snuff out these BS legal claims and unconstitutional bills BEFORE they even get to the vote stage. Somehow, politicians need to be put on notice or be personally responsible for the unconstitutional crap they try to pass.

It's going to get worse until our side really pushes back HARD. Just wait to see what crazy gets proposed after yesterday's New Zealand shooting.

PA just submitted a gun registration and grab bill the other day for consideration. These politicians just don't care anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

This story has additional info and perspective on the Remington suit, and in the writer's opinion why it's bogus.

....." The lawsuit against Remington is bogus. It has little to do with Connecticut commercial law and everything to do with a substantive gun-control agenda and the opportunistic inclination to wring money from institutions that have a great deal of it.

The second is political opportunism, the attempt to establish the precedent that failing to go along with the progressive political agenda makes one an enemy of the state, subject to political sanction and criminal prosecution.

The crime here was committed by Adam Lanza. But he isn’t the one with the money, and there’s no political juice in going after him."

Once again, this follows the BIG picture. The gun grabbers are going after all sides of the issue, while the 2A community sits on their hands and does NOTHING. They are WINNING, and we are LOSING. Period.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 45Doll said:

David French wrote about this today, and why the U.S. Supreme Court must intervene.

Unfortunately, "must" and "will" are two completely different animals. With a +1 conservative lean in the SCOTUS, and Roberts going all SJW lately, it's a crap shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 45Doll said:

David French wrote about this today, and why the U.S. Supreme Court must intervene.

Pull quote:

Quote

In reality, the court was using the broad language of the statute to impose its own, subjective view of “immorality” on gun makers, a ruling that, given the ubiquity of such statutes across the country, could expose gun makers to liability whenever state courts found gun ads distasteful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

In reality, the court was using the broad language of the statute to impose its own, subjective view of “immorality” on gun makers, a ruling that, given the ubiquity of such statutes across the country, could expose gun makers to liability whenever state courts found gun ads distasteful.

Isn't that the same thing Democrats do with the constitution, and claim it's a living, breathing document that can be interpreted at will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Isn't that the same thing Democrats do with the constitution, and claim it's a living, breathing document that can be interpreted at will?

No, No. That’s completely differrrrr..oh wait. Yes. Yes it is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2019 at 7:29 AM, remixer said:

Hard to say how remington will handle it. (Bad gun company fighting parents who lost children)

While remington might take a beating in the media for fighting this ridiculous lawsuit it would be no more of a beating the gun industry and those who support the 2a take daily.

We now know what they are going to do. Personally, I think it's a bad move.

...."July 27 (Reuters) - Remington Arms Co on Tuesday offered to pay nearly $33 million to nine families to settle lawsuits claiming that its marketing of firearms contributed to the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, where 26 people died.

The proposed settlements would provide $3.66 million to relatives of each victim, subject to approval by the federal judge overseeing Remington's bankruptcy case in Alabama.

Only nine families joined the lawsuit, and many joined for political reasons, as the goal is to increase the financial pressure on companies that sell "assault weapons", a label popular among proponents of gun control.

The families initially claimed that Remington knowingly marketed the gun for use by people to "carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/remington-reaches-historic-33-million-settlement-families-sandy-hook-victims

  • Sad 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an offer, case at this juncture is not settled. If it is their first offer, it is likely it will be rejected. Settlement offers are rarely subject to binding non-disclosure agreements because there is no legal consideration paid for an offer. As Remington is gone, no carrier would want to face the music of an unfavorable  jury verdict if they can avoid it given the underlying facts in the case and the uncertainty of what any State appellate court would do on appeal. Remember, this case is not in the Federal System, it is in the State Court System. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SJG said:

Its an offer, case at this juncture is not settled.

Yeah, but even a offer sets a really bad precedence, doesn't it? It possibly opens the door to be used as a weapon in any other future shooting situation. The family's claims are totally bogus, so agreeing to a settlement, without admitting you're guilty, is just as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Yeah, but even a offer sets a really bad precedence, doesn't it? It possibly opens the door to be used as a weapon in any other future shooting situation. The family's claims are totally bogus, so agreeing to a settlement, without admitting you're guilty, is just as bad.

I could be wrong but settling does not set legal precedent.  Just as important, it avoids Discovery. Remember we believed that the anti-gun PR groups were Salivating over all the material they were going to get from this case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I could be wrong but settling does not set legal precedent.  Just as important, it avoids Discovery. Remember we believed that the anti-gun PR groups were Salivating over all the material they were going to get from this case.  

Yeah, I know why they settle, to stop the bleeding of money to the lawyers, stop discovery, and move on. And while it might not set legal precedence, don't you think some anti-gun group will refer to the settlement in a future lawsuit or a anti-gun group might try and extort money from a different manufacture and hold them liable for the use of their products in a shooting? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Yeah, I know why they settle, to stop the bleeding of money to the lawyers, stop discovery, and move on. And while it might not set legal precedence, don't you think some anti-gun group will refer to the settlement in a future lawsuit or a anti-gun group might try and extort money from a different manufacture and hold them liable for the use of their products in a shooting? 

I mean there is another similar case already going on in Oregon so it’s not like anti-gun groups were waiting for “settlement” to try the same thing elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2021 at 9:43 PM, Sniper said:

or a anti-gun group might try and extort money from a different manufacture and hold them liable for the use of their products in a shooting? 

 

4 hours ago, voyager9 said:

And right on the heels of Remington’s settlement,  families sue manufacturer of 100-round drum magazine.  

Just like I alluded to above, the lawsuits now will be spewing out of the woodwork,  just like cockroaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 45Doll said:

And now Mexico wants in on the cash cow's teats!

Mexico Sues US Gun Manufacturers over Arms Trafficking Toll | Newsmax.com

They should sue the US government for Fast/Furious and themselves since I’m sure a lot of trafficked firearms come from corrupt police/military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

They should sue the US government for Fast/Furious and themselves since I’m sure a lot of trafficked firearms come from corrupt police/military. 

I would prefer they sue all the operatives, starting with Eric Holder (who concocted that operation to fabricate more evidence for gun control), so they could all pay out of their personal pockets instead of our taxpayer dollars. What's left of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...