Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit go forward

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by hammerkill, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. hammerkill

    hammerkill

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can pursue their lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 26 people.

    The justices rejected an appeal from Remington Arms that argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes.

    The case is being watched by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and gun manufacturers across the country, as it has the potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other mass shootings to circumvent the federal law and sue the makers of firearm.

    The court's order allows the lawsuit filed in Connecticut state court by a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, school on Dec. 14, 2012, to go forward.

    The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public. Gunman Adam Lanza used it to kill 20 first graders and six educators. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. Lanza was 20 years old.


    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-lets-sandy-hook-143642777.html


    this is a bunch of **** you watch these conneticut liberal clowns find for the plaintiffs for a fortune. lawyers and liberals are absolute scum!
     
    rfd339, glock1097, Caver 60 and 3 others like this.
  2. rock_castle

    rock_castle Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

    Messages:
    16,298
    Likes Received:
    31,941
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2014
    Location:
    The Rocky Mountains

  3. evlbruce

    evlbruce

    Messages:
    6,926
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Good thing we have Principled Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS.

    :rolleyes:
     
    rfd339, narkcop128, Cambo and 6 others like this.
  4. Intolerant

    Intolerant

    Messages:
    4,442
    Likes Received:
    5,675
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Makes about as much sense as somebody trying to sue a car company for getting a speeding ticket. The gun and the gun company aren`t responsible, the person operating the gun, is. Its sad when people today try to attach anything/everything possible to try to get more blood money.

    I do believe there was a law made, where they can NOT sue the gun companies. Yes/No ???
     
    rfd339, glock1097, Caver 60 and 2 others like this.
  5. spork

    spork Caffeinator

    Messages:
    3,338
    Likes Received:
    6,047
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Dystopia
    This is insane.

    My brother was murdered years ago by a scumbag armed with a 38 caliber Colt revolver. I never once considered suing Colt firearms, the distributor, the dealer, the prior owner, or any other such thing. Nobody in my family considered doing that. We only blamed one person for his death.
     
    Johnix, Caver 60, Cambo and 3 others like this.
  6. Pluto57

    Pluto57

    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    2,594
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Location:
    North Florida
    Well, they didn't rule on it, they just refused to look at it at all. They routinely refuse to hear cases, including gun related cases.
     
    rfd339, Slackinoff, glock1097 and 3 others like this.
  7. TheDreadnought

    TheDreadnought

    Messages:
    7,078
    Likes Received:
    11,155
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    The law clearly says the suit cannot go forward. I'm pretty sure this will get dismissed by the Supreme Court, so I'm curious why they are pressing it.

    Could be angry families are more concerned with getting their pound of flesh rather than making strategic decisions to advance gun control agendas.
     
    Intolerant likes this.
  8. Intolerant

    Intolerant

    Messages:
    4,442
    Likes Received:
    5,675
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    I`m actually surprised they haven`t tried to sue the ammo company, the primer company, the powder company, the bullet company, the brass company. Even try to sue the gun shop AND the person who sold the ammo.
     
    glock1097 and hammerkill like this.
  9. powernoodle

    powernoodle

    Messages:
    7,688
    Likes Received:
    21,960
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Location:
    secret underground bunker
    Thank you. The Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, meaning that it did not hear the appeal from the federal appellate court. The Supreme Court did not "let the case go forward", and it did not trample on the 2nd Amendment. It simply denied the petition to hear the appeal. This is what occurs in response to the vast majority of petitions for certiorari. Such appeals are discretionary, and the Supreme Court simply cannot hear every appeal from every court.
     
  10. Pluto57

    Pluto57

    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    2,594
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Location:
    North Florida
    I suppose Remington could try to get any verdict thrown out, but I don't see why the SCOTUS would be any more anxious to rule after the fact than they are now.
     
  11. Intolerant

    Intolerant

    Messages:
    4,442
    Likes Received:
    5,675
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Dont bet your life on it ;)
     
    Cambo and hammerkill like this.
  12. Intolerant

    Intolerant

    Messages:
    4,442
    Likes Received:
    5,675
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Spork, i am so sorry for your loss. Nobody should EVER have to ever go through this.
     
    spork, Cambo and Berto like this.
  13. Dave514

    Dave514

    Messages:
    38,421
    Likes Received:
    33,852
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Location:
    USSA
    Louisville Slugger better batten down the hatches.
     
    Navy1964 and Caver 60 like this.
  14. powernoodle

    powernoodle

    Messages:
    7,688
    Likes Received:
    21,960
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Location:
    secret underground bunker
  15. MrGlock21

    MrGlock21

    Messages:
    3,703
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Location:
    North Texas
  16. Grabbrass

    Grabbrass

    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    20,596
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Location:
    Almost Heaven

    Also IIRC the issue that is still alive in this case has to do with whether Remington negligently marketed the rifle to target young men with fantasies of murder, that kind of thing. The issue of whether a manufacturer is shielded by the 2005 law for making and selling guns is already settled (in Remington's favor). What the plaintiffs are being given the opportunity to prove is that Remington specifically advertised this gun as a great gun for mass killings, just like in your favorite video games, etc etc.

    The sky is not falling, the Supreme Court has not come down on anyone's side here.
     
    spork likes this.
  17. Biggy1

    Biggy1

    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    2,638
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Location:
    New Knoxville,Ohio
    **Connecticut Supreme Court** ... VERY DIFFERENT FROM SCOTUS. Yahoo at it again!
    It’s not a blow to the firearms industry and the lawsuit will go nowhere. In the end, gun manufacturers are not responsible for how people use their products.
    If one goes down this road, then by this Jurisprudence precedence, breweries, distilleries and automakers will be susceptible to these types of lawsuits. I don't think so.
     
    UncleDave, Bus007 and PhotoFeller like this.
  18. BigBluefish

    BigBluefish

    Messages:
    4,274
    Likes Received:
    9,130
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    Correct. The SCOTUS didn't actually say anything about the merits of the case; they rejected the appeal by Remington. The CT Supreme Court tossed out most of the case, leaving only a claim as to marketing/advertising AR-15 rifles. Not only would plaintiff's have to show that Remington somehow marketed them illegally or inappropriately, they would have to show that this was a cause of the shooting at Sandy Hook.

    Good luck with that. <insert sarcasm icon>

    Now, the sky might indeed be falling at this very moment, but not because of this.
     
  19. PhotoFeller

    PhotoFeller A swamp dude

    Messages:
    9,549
    Likes Received:
    7,690
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Seems like the logic of this case could apply to relatives of drunk-driver victims who sue the distiller of whiskey consumed by intoxicated operators; it should not have sold a product that could result in the deaths of auto accident victims.

    Surely the law applies the burden of individual accountability in such cases.
     
    Caver 60 likes this.
  20. BigBluefish

    BigBluefish

    Messages:
    4,274
    Likes Received:
    9,130
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    At this point, given the CT Supreme Court's ruling, the relatives would have to show that the whiskey was marketed improperly, the drunk consumed the whiskey as a result of the marketing, and the whiskey was a cause of the accident.

    They could sue the car manufacturer on the same theory.

    Frankly, I'd more concerned if I were marketing fast cars, rather than guns.
     
    PhotoFeller likes this.