Jump to content
SJG

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Remington Case

Recommended Posts

It's all over the news. Remington has to either face the music at trial or try and settle the case. If the case proceeds to trial and they loose they can appeal-but the case is in the State Court System--that is not good. They would have to exhaust their appeals in the State System and then try SCOTUS on the pre-emption issue. SCOTUS probably hopes this case will go away by a settlement or failure at trial. The case will continue to have a chilling effect on the entire industry in the meantime. Also, the cost of doing business in the industry will probably increase as insurance carriers will face greater exposure and pass that along to manufacturers in the form of increased insurance premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we still thinking that SCOTUS is going to save us?????

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

The court opted not to hear the gun-maker's appeal, in a decision that was announced Tuesday morning. The justices did not include any comment about the case, Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, as they turned it away.

Remington had appealed to the highest federal court after the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the Sandy Hook lawsuit to proceed in March. In recent court filings, Remington says the case "presents a nationally important question" about U.S. gun laws — namely, how to interpret the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants broad immunity to gun-makers and dealers from prosecution over crimes committed with their products."

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-case-against-remington-to-proceed

I wonder if the parents of the two dead kids in Toms River the other day will file lawsuits against Porsche in the SCOTUS, for allowing their son's to die in that high speed crash?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a reach and Sniper will call me a dreamer but, is it possible that they didn't want to hear it "as is"?  They may not have wanted to give total impunity to a corp.  But would rather rule on the final verdict? Remington is being accused of deliberately marketing to children in a blood and guts way.  Possibly the outcome of that needs to play out to get on their agenda?

42 minutes ago, Sniper said:

I wonder if the parents of the two dead kids in Toms River the other day will file lawsuits against Porsche in the SCOTUS, for allowing their son's to die in that high speed crash?

And actually I do feel that some of these car commercials over romanticize the performance of their cars for sales.  Is it Porsche's  fault?  In my opinion, no.  As parents we should be teaching our kids reality from BS.  But it wouldn't surprise me at all if they don't go after them looking for a settlement.   

Share this post


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

I know this is a reach and Sniper will call me a dreamer but, is it possible that they didn't want to hear it "as is"?  They may not have wanted to give total impunity to a corp.  But would rather rule on the final verdict?

That's possible, but doesn't the Federal law passed in 2005 already give them that impunity?

It seems the basis of the lawsuit is this:

...."An exception in the law, provided in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit. They claim that Remington marketed the weapon “as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings.”

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a divided opinion earlier this year that the family members could pursue their lawsuit, rejecting Remington’s argument."

So, the families are claiming Remington marketed their AR15s as "designed to kill other human beings". :scratchhead: :no2:

That seems a bit of a stretch, and if the case continues at the state level, will have BIG ramifications for Remington and the rest of the gun industry. What options does Remington have, either settle out of court (where Liberals will spin and claim they admitted guilt) or hope for the best in a drawn out court case in Liberalville CT? If they lose the CT case and appeal back up up to the S.C., you're talking multiple years and millions of dollars, even if they finally win, based on existing law.

In the mean time, it opens up all cans of worms for other frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sniper said:

the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices,

This^^^ might be the loop hole they're reaching through to grab their brass ring.  Knowingly violating the law.  Trying to prove intent.  Remington intended for creeps like this to do these things as advertised.  

 

Actually if you go back and check it was his mother's fault.  He was not allowed to own guns per the law but she gave him access to her safe.  So he shot her and went to the school.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn’t the specific marketing they're basing the case on a Remington add that said something to the effect of “Get your man-card back” with associated SEAL-type operator in the background?

to claim that’s marketing illegal activity is a worse stretch than a fat man in a yoga class. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Wasn’t the specific marketing they're basing the case on a Remington add that said something to the effect of “Get your man-card back” with associated SEAL-type operator in the background?

Maybe.  But that would be a point.  A delusional SOB like this one could read that as he could get back his FID (or whatever Connecticut calls their version).  Not that it should be Remington's fault but a case could be made.  The whole thing sucks.  It's the blame game.  In this case the blame?  Not society or authorities or family who should have addressed his mental issues.  It's the gun, what else?   A mental case has more rights to protect him from being cured than gun owners have to protect themselves. 

Share this post


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

Maybe I missed the Remington ad saying:

Kill your mom. Steal her firearms. Go go school and kill people.

Yup, I missed that one too...

The dude committed multiple felonies, even before he left the house that morning..

But........ it's the gun and the manufacturer's fault...... again.....  :banghead:

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, silverado427 said:

This will open up a can of worms,  I'm guessing Budwieser ,Coors  will be next on the list.:ninja:

and anyone who's been injured in a shooting.

Think new firearms are expensive now... just wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sets a horrible precedent, not even just for firearms manufacturers but as some of you already pointed out, a number of industries. I mean, being held responsible for third party sellers? Let me get this straight: Remington sells this firearm to a gun store, the gun store has the NICS check done, sells it legally to someone, that someone's son takes the gun without permission and shoots a ton of people. So they are trying to create blame a number of levels backwards? Can I sue Yuengling and Chevy if I drink too much at the bar and crash? Can I sue Boeing if a pilot screws up a land and bounces too hard, causing injury? If I take the bus somewhere and the driver decides to run a red light to save time, then crashes, can I sue Greyhound?

It's insane how horrible this will go. I feel for these people. I really do. No one should have to suffer the death of a child from some psycho who shoots up a school. But Remington is so far down on the list of who could be blamed, it's senseless.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was this a surprise?  If someone wants to sue Remington why should they not be able to?  It has been happening for decades in Aviation.   Its also idiotic to think the manufacturer of a product is liable for someone mis-using that product in a criminal manner.

Has anyone successfully sued GM for being hit by a drunk driver?

Has Home Depot been sued for that terrorist in NYC that ran people over with their rental truck?

What complete idiocy. 

1 minute ago, Greenday said:

This sets a horrible precedent, not even just for firearms manufacturers but as some of you already pointed out, a number of industries. I mean, being held responsible for third party sellers? Let me get this straight: Remington sells this firearm to a gun store, the gun store has the NICS check done, sells it legally to someone, that someone's son takes the gun without permission and shoots a ton of people. So they are trying to create blame a number of levels backwards? Can I sue Yuengling and Chevy if I drink too much at the bar and crash? Can I sue Boeing if a pilot screws up a land and bounces too hard, causing injury? If I take the bus somewhere and the driver decides to run a red light to save time, then crashes, can I sue Greyhound?

It's insane how horrible this will go. I feel for these people. I really do. No one should have to suffer the death of a child from some psycho who shoots up a school. But Remington is so far down on the list of who could be blamed, it's senseless.

We finally agree on something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kevin125 said:

Has anyone successfully sued GM for being hit by a drunk driver?

Has Home Depot been sued for that terrorist in NYC that ran people over with their rental truck?

Surprised people in Boston didn't sue the maker of the pressure cooker used in the marathon bombing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still numerous hurdles the plaintiffs will have to overcome before this case is even submitted to a jury. Most likely they will need evidence that can convince a jury that shooter saw the advertisements and relied on them in connection with the AR purchase and that the marketing practices were a substantial factor in the shooting injury and deaths at issue.  They don't prove their case just because of the alleged advertisement and that their product was used in the shooting.   Just how the plaintffs are going to prove that Remington marketed the weapon “as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings-also remains to be seen. All  firearms are highly lethal --but proving that they were designed for illegal purposes is another kettle of fish. The downside here is that this is a mass shooting with huge dollar exposure in a anti-gun environment and will cost Remington and its carriers millions in defense legal fees moving forward. It will also encourage others to bring similar claims. This would not be a good time to invest in gun stocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every auto manufacturer in this country should donate to Remington's cause to fight this case.  This is going to open the door for every family of every person injured or killed in a DWI to sue the car company for the advertising the car's acceleration, handling or traction abilities.

Every alcohol producer needs is about to be on the hook for every rape and/or sexual assault by anyone for every commercial where a guy opens a beer and proceeds to hang out with an attractive female.  

 

My daughter just called and is on her way home from work and has car issues so I have to cut my rant short. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kevin125 said:

Has anyone successfully sued GM for being hit by a drunk driver?

People sued Ford because Ford knew the Pinto would explode but they still marketed it knowingly. The issue is did Remington market the gun as a human killing machine?  That’s the point the grabbers are trying to make. Intent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SJG said:

This would not be a good time to invest in gun stocks

Or is it?  The stocks will definitely be down. The question is will they stay down? S&W and Ruger still haven’t bounced to where they should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, speaking to a legal expert, the case has been broken down to the essentials as this: The liability is based on the claim that it's Remington's advertising that caused Adam Lanza to commit this atrocity. So is that viable to sue Remington over? Yes, the claim is a valid reason to sue. Proving it though has a much higher burden though.

Based on that, I'd have a hard time believing by definition Remington could be held responsible as there's no proof that's why he actually did it. But it wouldn't be the first time a sympathetic jury gave out a ridiculous settlement.

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...