38 minutes ago, BobA said:

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. 

They've been down since Trump won. Now, if the Dems stand a chance in winning in 2020, that would be the time to buy those stocks.

I'm sure the marketing departments of every firearms company (and their agency partners) are frantically huddling right now to map out future strategy.

Honestly though, the ads where an occupant of the house knows there's an intruder at the door and he (or she) quickly grabs a gun ... for me, those are the most impactful anyway. I realize I'm not the young male target audience they might prefer, but damn, I'd LOVE to see them advertising guns purely from a self-defense angle... perhaps highlighting a few jaw-dropping statistics re: the frequency of DGU's... or maybe even featuring real gun owners who used a gun defensively to save lives! That would not only advertise their product effectively, but it would also serve as an education campaign bringing out facts that the mainstream media always manages to keep hidden. Win-win. They should play this to their/our advantage if you ask me.

This won't end well.  

If this goes through you will see a lot of lawsuits against car manufacturer's.

37 minutes ago, tony357 said:

If this goes through you will see a lot of lawsuits against car manufacturer's.

And alcohol manufacturers 

and axe and hammer manufacturers. Hell crowbar manufacturers. Knife manufacturers. Etc

Another analysis of the situation:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/remington-v-soto-why-everyone-should-keep-calm-and-carry-on/

...

So, what does this mean going forward?

For the plaintiffs in Remington Arms v. Soto, it means that they will now have to prove, with admissible evidence, that (1) Bushmaster in fact violated the Connecticut false marketing statute, (2) that Bushmaster knowingly violated it, and (3) that such violations proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries.

While I seriously doubt plaintiffs will be able to prove any of these, the third element appears virtually impossible to prove (as I believe the dissent in the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized).

As I see it, the plaintiffs will have to show — with admissible evidence — that Adam Lanza actually saw the advertising in question, and that the false nature of the advertising (i.e., the state law violation) is what caused him to commit mass murder and thus caused plaintiffs’ injuries.

...

 

1 hour ago, DirtyDigz said:

Another analysis of the situation:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/remington-v-soto-why-everyone-should-keep-calm-and-carry-on/

 

 

Or (4) defendants will have to prove to activist judges Lanza DID NOT see the advertisements in question. As with most 2A issues you are guilty till proven innocent.

I wonder if for the backers of this lawsuit, is it more about what they can get from Remington in discovery and not winning the case itself.  The suit itself looks like such a stretch that I can’t help but look for ulterior motives. 

My understanding is that the current law prevents manufactures from being sued simply because they sold the firearm. I don't believe it absolves them of all liability. 

 

@DirtyDigz provided the bases for the claim. It details that the companies "speech(ads)" are at the focus of the suit, and not the weapons(product). 

Regardless, I see nothing in those ads that is directed towards kids, or enabling a person to commit a mass shooting... I don't even see it glorifying violence, as if there was a reward to obtain from killing people. 

 

This suit is a joke, and they should be counter suing for defamation. 

 

There is a reason why alcohol ads always seem to push the idea of "drink responsibly"

Or if in a car ad where they show it moving fasts ,they put up a disclaimer "professional on closed road course".

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

I wonder if for the backers of this lawsuit, is it more about what they can get from Remington in discovery and not winning the case itself.  The suit itself looks like such a stretch that I can’t help but look for ulterior motives. 

It certainly looks like a stretch, and what could they get in discovery. Ad copies from Remington's marketing department.

It could just be a shakedown attempt, where Remington will agree just to settle, without admitting guilt, just to stop the money bleed from the legal expenses.

Then, the Dems will claim "victory" and twist it to say Remington admitted guilt. Dems voters are easily misled and lied to regularly..... and the MSM helps them every day...

15 minutes ago, Sniper said:

It could just be a shakedown attempt, where Remington will agree just to settle, without admitting guilt, just to stop the money bleed from the legal expenses.

If Remington wins, can’t they go after them for legal costs?

On 11/12/2019 at 12:35 PM, njJoniGuy said:

Is this the Sandy Hook (Newtown CT) case?

Yes

It has no legal precedential value but practical ramifications for the industry

1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

My understanding is that the current law prevents manufactures from being sued simply because they sold the firearm. I don't believe it absolves them of all liability. 

 

@DirtyDigz provided the bases for the claim. It details that the companies "speech(ads)" are at the focus of the suit, and not the weapons(product). 

Regardless, I see nothing in those ads that is directed towards kids, or enabling a person to commit a mass shooting... I don't even see it glorifying violence, as if there was a reward to obtain from killing people. 

 

This suit is a joke, and they should be counter suing for defamation. 

 

There is a reason why alcohol ads always seem to push the idea of "drink responsibly"

Or if in a car ad where they show it moving fasts ,they put up a disclaimer "professional on closed road course".

No they can still be sued but must raise the immunity as a defense and see where that goes

There is no basis for a defamation suit

27 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

If Remington wins, can’t they go after them for legal costs?

Possibly, if it goes the complete court route, but that gets even more expensive and there's no guarantees they will win.

That's why many major corporations just agree to some sort of settlement, but not agreeing to guilt, just to make the case go away.

They absolutely cannot go after them for legal fees even if they win

49 minutes ago, Sniper said:

That's why many major corporations just agree to some sort of settlement

In the shadow of "money talks and BS walks" I'll say I don't think the Sandy Hookers will settle.  They're fighting a cause.  But! You never know....

2 hours ago, SJG said:

 

There is no basis for a defamation suit

Well, i'm curious..

Whats to stop anyone from suing a company for unfair trade practices, "wrongful marketing claims"? Anyone can twist marketing claims...

 

If i purchase one of those impossible whoppers... 

Can i sue Burger King when i discover it doesnt taste like real meat? and the pain and suffering i endured from such a terrible meal has left me scarred for life? That i can no longer can look at a hamburger again the same, in fear it may be fake!

1 hour ago, BobA said:

In the shadow of "money talks and BS walks" I'll say I don't think the Sandy Hookers will settle.  They're fighting a cause.  But! You never know....

I would hope that remington wouldnt settle. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the shit storm that would follow. Anyone could sue a gun manufacture under the claims one of their ads glorified violence.

5 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

I would hope that remington wouldnt settle. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the shit storm that would follow. Anyone could sue a gun manufacture under the claims one of their ads glorified violence.

It's not always their choice.  Depends on their Ins policy.  Also they're probably not going to care about about setting precedent.  Just on how to get out of this economically and gracefully with their skins. 

2 minutes ago, BobA said:

It's not always their choice.  Depends on their Ins policy.  Also they're probably not going to care about about setting precedent.  Just on how to get out of this economically and gracefully with their skins. 

Yep, and depending on the Court of Public Opinion, it could hurt them. Sadly, most of this gun BS lately is ruled by emotion, not facts and logic.

1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

Well, i'm curious..

Whats to stop anyone from suing a company for unfair trade practices, "wrongful marketing claims"? Anyone can twist marketing claims...

 

If i purchase one of those impossible whoppers... 

Can i sue Burger King when i discover it doesnt taste like real meat? and the pain and suffering i endured from such a terrible meal has left me scarred for life? That i can no longer can look at a hamburger again the same, in fear it may be fake!

I would hope that remington wouldnt settle. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the shit storm that would follow. Anyone could sue a gun manufacture under the claims one of their ads glorified violence.

1. Nothing. But not having it thrown out on motion or getting to the jury verdict stage is a different matter

2. How would you know that you got a Real Impossible Burger and not a fake https://nypost.com/2019/06/08/brooklyn-burger-king-caught-replacing-meatless-impossible-whoppers-with-beef/.

And if you got a fake and did not find out and thought it did not taste like real meat, I guess you would loose the case. Although you might have another one for fraud

5 hours ago, SJG said:

They absolutely cannot go after them for legal fees even if they win

Could you please clarify?  

16 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Could you please clarify?  

On 11/16/2019 at 7:39 AM, DirtyDigz said:

 

 

Once the S. Ct. of Conn determined that the case could go forward and the U.S. Supreme Ct refused to grant cert that automatically establishes that a valid cause of action sufficient to justify further proceedings exists and under those circumstances legal fees cannot be recovered even if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful at trial.