SCOTUS Allows Sandy Hook families to Sue

[BrooklynGuy]

 

Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook families to sue gunmaker Remington Arms

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a blow to the gun industry by permitting a lawsuit to proceed against the maker of the AR-15-style weapon used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 26 dead. The justices denied a bid from firearms manufacturer Remington Arms, which argued that it should be protected by a 2005 federal law that aims to prevent most lawsuits against gunmakers when their weapons are used in crimes. The order allowed a survivor and relatives of nine victims of the horrific Dec. 14, 2012, massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, to pursue their lawsuit.

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-to-sue-gun-maker-remington-arms/

[+and-then]

I suspect that Remington will spare no expense on this defense.  Multiple entities from all over America will help fund it and will probably file Amicus briefs as well.  The SCOTUS needs to tread carefully here.  They have become misconstrued as being all-powerful and a last arbiter of all disputes but their role as defined in the Constitution is no greater than the Executive or the Legislative.  If the SCOTUS ever attempts to impose severe restrictions on 2A, there WILL be a real Constitutional crisis and the downstream effects might well be nasty.  That's a line that will be defended.

[Dark_Grey]

Quote

The papers, filed in 2014, charged that Remington Arms never should have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public.

Hoo-boy...

Quote

The suit also alleges that the North Carolina-based company targeted younger at-risk men in marketing in violent video games.

Remington’s ads, the suit says, “continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman.”

I don't see this accusation being upheld. Remington Arms did not "target at-risk men" specifically, they targeted the demographics purchasing violent games. 

[+Not A Rockstar]

Not sure what I think about this. Many produce items or objects or substances which are deadly if misused. If they do so in accord with the Laws, the liability has always fallen on the ones doing the wrong usage.

To suddenly try to go around behind the Lawmakers to attack a producer of something misused despite it all being perfectly legal (I say nothing about right or wrong) is problematic for me. 

It looks.... kind of political really.

What a surprise.

[spartan max2]

Disagree with the lawsuit.

I voted need more information, on the universal background check for guns.

I agree with requiring federal background checks to people when buying guns.

I don't agree with the government having a database of all legal gun owners though.

[+Not A Rockstar]

I voted the same and see it as you do @spartan max2   I don't trust anyone with a registry of all gun owners, let alone a UNIVERSAL background system to include folks not even buying guns possibly. Let them in the door and before you know it they own the house. It starts out reasonable and is really a grab. Take a page from the pro abortion crowd and tolerate NO compromise or encroachment.

Not good.

[+Desertrat56]

I want to know if the person selling the gun to the shooter is also included on the lawsuit.  If the person could not have gotten the weapon legally then that would make sense.  I agree with @Not A Rockstar  and  with @spartan max2.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

25 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Not sure what I think about this. Many produce items or objects or substances which are deadly if misused. If they do so in accord with the Laws, the liability has always fallen on the ones doing the wrong usage.

To suddenly try to go around behind the Lawmakers to attack a producer of something misused despite it all being perfectly legal (I say nothing about right or wrong) is problematic for me. 

It looks.... kind of political really.

What a surprise.

I still remember when the little boy across the street got murdered by his dad with a screw driver.  That, for me, puts it into perspective.  Albuquerque is notorious for really bad judges and decision in family court, based on money and who you know instead of facts and laws.  That man had no business getting visitation, there were police reports of assault and inappropriate behavior around children and he still got unsupervised visitation with his son. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Desertrat56

[+Not A Rockstar]

5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

If the person could not have gotten the weapon legally

This is where to drop the hammers, and the shooters themselves. If the law needs to ban ARs (and really perhaps they should), then do so and be clear and have gunmakers comply. You cannot just rewrite the past to dodge and deflect blame and pretend now it is the manufacturer's fault for making them at all. Change the laws then, do not sneak back to hammer the producers of a legal item, sold legally. We need to enforce current laws, before making more IMO.

[papageorge1]

It seems ridiculous to allow people to sue the manufacturer.

[Robotic Jew]

Universal background checks are a good start. Needs to be followed up with mandatory training and licensing and ehanced consequences for negligence or refusal to follow/adhere to guidelines.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

As I see it there isn't any conflict in the lower courts on the suit and there isn't any Constitutional issue that has arisen "yet".  So the SCOTUS will just wait until there is. The lawsuit will have to take its course and a frivolous course at that.

The weapon wasn't sold to the shooter but to the shooters mom and she also died by the same weapon.

This would be like your spouse taking your hammer out of your toolbox, beating you with it and then you suing the hammer manufacturer for the offense.

 

[Robotic Jew]

2 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

As I see it there isn't any conflict in the lower courts on the suit and there isn't any Constitutional issue that has arisen "yet".  So the SCOTUS will just wait until there is. The lawsuit will have to take its course and a frivolous course at that.

The weapon wasn't sold to the shooter but to the shooters mom and she also died by the same weapon.

This would be like your spouse taking your hammer out of your toolbox, beating you with it and then you suing the hammer manufacturer for the offense.

 

Not really. A hammer has other uses besides murder.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

5 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Not really. A hammer has other uses besides murder.

So do firearms. It's been an Olympic sport since 1896.

I really think you missed the overall analogy.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Buzz_Light_Year

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

So do firearms. It's been an Olympic sport since 1896.

A AR-15 serves 3 purposes. Military, law enforcement and people with penis issues. It was made to kill people with.

A bolt action works just fine for target shooting and hunting. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

A AR-15 serves 3 purposes. Military, law enforcement and people with penis issues. It was made to kill people with.

A bolt action works just fine for target shooting and hunting. 

That is certainly the truth, plus I prefer a larger caliber round for hunting anyway. When it comes to hunting all their good for is small game anyway. Try going Bear hunting with an AR-15, see how that works out for you.

Good post Piney.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[Grim Reaper 6]

I would also add that I don't think allowing gun manufacturer to be sued for producing a legal firearm is right. They didn't sell it to the individual who committed the crime. The worst part is now a new precedent in law has been set, which could allow people to go after any gun manufacturer whose guns are used to kill some one. I am not an expert on this subject so my last statement could be wrong.

But, with that said I still do not beleive there is place for assault rifles in the public sector. They serve no purpose, for hunting, home protection, of personnel protection.

JIMO

Edited November 13, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Not sure what I think about this. Many produce items or objects or substances which are deadly if misused. If they do so in accord with the Laws, the liability has always fallen on the ones doing the wrong usage.

To suddenly try to go around behind the Lawmakers to attack a producer of something misused despite it all being perfectly legal (I say nothing about right or wrong) is problematic for me. 

It looks.... kind of political really.

What a surprise.

It will be viewed as a direct attack on 2A, as it should be.  Those who think this is laughable have an awakening coming.  Personal opinions aside, millions of Americans will stand against severe limitations of 2A and those who think they won't are selling a LOT of people short.  These fools just THINK they know what a resistance is.  Let them laugh.  They'll find it stops being funny when it starts being THEM.

This is just another step in the woosification of America and those comfortable with a boot on their neck can cower and cringe for the rest of their lives for all I care.  Their chains should fit them well.

[Gunn]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

A AR-15 serves 3 purposes. Military, law enforcement and people with penis issues. It was made to kill people with.

A bolt action works just fine for target shooting and hunting. 

Depends on what you are hunting and how many vermin you need to get rid of. Case in point;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANKgTjUD69U

AR-15 rifles to protect crops from hogs

I try to shoot as many as I can and a single shot rifle that takes time to reload  = quite a few that got a way.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Gunn

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, Gunn said:

I try to shoot as many as I can and a single shot rifle that takes time to reload  = quite a few that got a way.

I'm pretty speedy with my bolt Enfield and I used stripper clips. 

[Gunn]

8 minutes ago, Piney said:

I'm pretty speedy with my bolt Enfield and I used stripper clips. 

I'd rather prefer M 1 Garand to your Enfield, thanks.

BTW, both your Enfield and my M 1 Garand are also military weapons and are made to kill people with too. Even though they're old semi-auto rifles, they can do just as much damage as a AR-15.

[Piney]

25 minutes ago, Gunn said:

I'd rather prefer M 1 Garand . 

 

I had a 1950s IH still in it's cosmoline in the 80s for IPSC and DCM. 

Little too heavy for a saddle gun. 

I was dumb enough to mill the ears off my 17 Winchester-Enfield in the 80s so I just screwed a 18in Hastings on it and shoved it in a Ramline stock. It took about 6lbs off of it. 

Had to have Mernickle customize me a scabbard but WTF. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by Piney
**** Atlantis

[Grim Reaper 6]

21 minutes ago, Piney said:

I had a 1950s IH still in it's cosmoline in the 80s for IPSC and DCM. 

Little too heavy for a saddle gun. 

I was dumb enough to mill the ears off my 17 Winchester-Enfield in the 80s so I just screwed a 18in Hastings on it and shove it in a Ramline stock. It took about 6lbs off of it. 

Had to have Mernickle customize me a scabbard but WTF. 

At some point in time most of us hunters have screwed up a weapon or two. It would have been so much easier to just talk to a gunsmith, but when we are young we think we have all the answers don't we.

i do like your choice of Rifle, they certainly make great shooters.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[Grim Reaper 6]

30 minutes ago, Gunn said:

I'd rather prefer M 1 Garand to your Enfield, thanks.

BTW, both your Enfield and my M 1 Garand are also military weapons and are made to kill people with too. Even though they're old semi-auto rifles, they can do just as much damage as a AR-15.

I don't like the M1 Garand as a hunting rifle, guess I'm a whimp but the dam things are to heavy. I do however like the M1 Carbine, its a great little 30 caliber rifle and it's not heavy.

[RavenHawk]

I agree with allowing the families to sue.  This is not the realm of the SC to determine that.  And the validity of the case will be proved in court.  The basic defense will be that if you can sue a gun maker for the deaths in mass shootings, then you'll be able to sue automakers for the deaths in auto accidents.  Yes, there are cases where manufacturer defects causes accidents but most are due to human error.  You can't recall a firearm for functioning the way it was designed.  It is the human operator that is responsible.