Author Topic: Remington can be sued for Sandy Hook shooting. (Read 50022 times)

exiledtoIA · « **on:** March 14, 2019, 03:22:59 pm »

CT supreme court has ruled that Remington can be sued for their marketing practices in the Sandy Hook shooting. Claims that Remington marketed the AR-15 in ads pointed at youth.

WeTheArmed.com

trucker3573 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2019, 03:48:06 pm »

Can't this be taken to the US Supreme Court? I would think it would be blasted down immediately. Most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Will definitely be a years and years drug out thing.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

LowKey · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2019, 07:02:12 pm »

Quote from: exiledtoIA on March 14, 2019, 03:22:59 pm

CT supreme court has ruled that Remington can be sued for their marketing practices in the Sandy Hook shooting. Claims that Remington marketed the AR-15 in ads pointed at youth.

Airlines market vacation flights (Disneyland and so forth) at youth.
Does that mean folks can go after the airlines for 9/11?

The CT Supreme Court should be impeached and disbarred across the bar*, it's long been established that intentional miss-use of a product does not make the manufacturer liable. I do believe that Remington, along with all other major firearms manufacturers, makes mention of NOT pointing their firearms at people in the Owners Manual.

Also <waves hand in air> wasn't there a bit of federal legislation passed a decade or so ago to specifically block this sort of inane crap?

*Pun intended.

cpaspr · « **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2019, 07:54:14 pm »

But BUT BUTT SPUTTER, SPurt

IT'S FOR TEH CHILDREN !!!!!

_______________________

To quote that great philosopher, B. Bunny:

"What a bunch of maroons!"

Mikee5star · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2019, 11:17:53 pm »

This will either be spun out for years in the courts, or Remington the oldest privately owned gun company in the US will close. Maybe both.

exiledtoIA · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2019, 11:23:51 pm »

LowKey, it was a split decision. The court ruled that they can't be sued for manufacture of the weapon, but they can be sued for marketing ads aimed at youth.

exiledtoIA · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2019, 11:25:39 pm »

Quote from: Mikee5star on March 14, 2019, 11:17:53 pm

This will either be spun out for years in the courts, or Remington the oldest privately owned gun company in the US will close. Maybe both.

I thought Remington was owned by Freedom group? Same group that rolled Marlin into Remington with not so great results.

coelacanth · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2019, 11:33:04 pm »

I don't think its going anywhere. The Ct. Supreme Court didn't do anything but remand the lower court ruling back to them. That court may simply add additional restrictions that will only result in additional lawsuits appealed up to the higher court. At any rate what the suit seeks is a fishing expedition for internal Remington documents, memos and e-mails and the like that give insight into marketing strategies and practices used to market AR-15 style rifles. Given the fact that the weapon used in the Sandy Hook shooting was stolen after its owner was murdered would seem to argue against any reasonable likelihood of holding a manufacturer responsible for that tragedy.

The Federal PLCAA - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed into law in 2005 to prevent just such lunacy as the folks in Connecticut are imagining in their fevered little liberal brains.

They seek to do an end run around that legislation by using Connecticut state law to accomplish the same general end. They see deep pockets over there at Remington and want to run their greedy hands all the way to the bottom.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2019, 12:25:53 am »

The case hasn't been lost yet, and it is only about the marketing of the gun.
Even if the plaintiffs win it can be appealed.

RMc · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2019, 02:07:48 am »

What a precedent that could set! Just think of the millions waiting to be skimmed from automobile manufacturers! Dangerous driving stunts to sell the latest car or 4x4 would make the manufacturer liable! $$$$$

Mikee5star · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2019, 11:17:04 am »

Quote from: exiledtoIA on March 14, 2019, 11:25:39 pm

I thought Remington was owned by Freedom group? Same group that rolled Marlin into Remington with not so great results.

I thought so also. But the Freedom Group changed its name to Remington Outdoor Company in 2015. They went into chapter 11 in March 2018.

Quote from: RMc on March 15, 2019, 02:07:48 am

What a precedent that could set! Just think of the millions waiting to be skimmed from automobile manufacturers! Dangerous driving stunts to sell the latest car or 4x4 would make the manufacturer liable! $$$$$

Sure seems like a cash grab in an attempt to put gun manufactures out of business, or at least make their products more expensive, similar to tobacco/cig companies.

MTK20 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2019, 01:33:55 pm »

So now if someone murders someone, we can sue their parents and extended family. After all, they "manufactured" a killer

.

Some people like sports and some like reality television, but politics is a flying circus of excitement

.

Raptor · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2019, 01:41:17 pm »

Quote from: Mikee5star on March 15, 2019, 11:17:04 am

Sure seems like a cash grab in an attempt to put gun manufactures out of business, or at least make their products more expensive, similar to tobacco/cig companies.

That's the idea. And the reason my PLCAA was enacted in the first place.

goatroper · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2019, 02:03:59 pm »

Mikee5star and Raptor have it right: it's all about the money. And it's not about winning or even being right -- if they can't ban guns, they can chip away at a corporation's profit by forcing them into constant litigation. Even if this case is lost, it's likely to encourage others. Remember the plans to tax ammo out of existence when gun bans didn't take? Same idea.

LowKey · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2019, 02:20:32 pm »

Quote from: MTK20 on March 15, 2019, 01:33:55 pm

Some people like sports and some like reality television, but politics is a flying circus of ~~excitement~~excrement .

FTFY

MTK20 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 15, 2019, 03:09:23 pm »

Quote from: LowKey on March 15, 2019, 02:20:32 pm

FTFY

It's positively riveting!

Kaso · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2019, 09:30:48 pm »

Remington 'can be sued.' Big deal. Anyone can be sued. I have been sued. It was bogus, and I was taken off of the suit by a judge, but that's how easy it is.

The court in this case says they can be sued against some CT statute, and because they supposedly 'marketed their products to children.' Well of course they did. Every grown man is just an overgrown child, and these AR-15s are their big, black Barbie dolls...

Oh, they meant marketing toward 'minors'... Yeah, good luck getting that one through. Remington will win this, federal law being plainly on their side. Hopefully the presiding judge throws the court fees and Remington's legal fees back onto the plaintiffs.

trucker3573 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 10, 2019, 01:34:20 am »

Ads aimed at youths?? Lmao...pretty sure you have to be 18 to buy one right?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Langenator · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2019, 07:01:23 am »

Well, the person who could best be held liable, if anyone were to be, would be the shooter's mother, who owned the gun(s) in question, and failed to ensure they they were secured in such a way that her son, whom she knew or should have known to have serious mental health issues, would be unable to access them. (IIRC, she actually lockd them in a security container, but it was a cheap, key locking type, and he got access to the key by killing her.)

But 1) she's dead; and 2) her estate probably isn't worth enough to be worth suing, not after the lawyers get their cut, and any remaining money is split among all the victims' families.

The whole thing is funded by the Brady Bunch, et al., for the exact purpose already stated - to cost a gun company lots of $$$.