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

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.

  • NJGF members in chat (3)



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information