View Full Version : SCOTUS Rules Gun Manufacturer Can be sued
Considering the make up of the court and prior legal precedent and law passed by Congress, a surprising decision. It seems based on a very narrow aspect, which will get them no place, but again, will use up $ resources of the company being sued which may effectively put them out of biz as well as a ripple effect within the industry:
Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturer brought by Sandy Hook families
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/12/supreme-court-sandy-hook-lawsuit-gun-manufacturer-proceed/2565344001/
Outlander Systems
11-12-19, 09:52
Is anyone tired of all that winning, yet?
Averageman
11-12-19, 09:53
The Automobile folks are gonna love this...
BoringGuy45
11-12-19, 10:08
They didn't rule that they can be sued. They just didn't block the case.
I'd imagine it's all Roberts. The guy is just dickless. He knows what's right but he turns away anything controversial so he doesn't have to rule on it.
Also according to the article, the 2005 law is not absolute. However, I'm guessing they're going to find out that Remington is not liable, because what these families are alleging is that because the AR-15 is not designed for civilian use, they were responsible for marketing and selling it to civilians.
Honestly, it could plant the seeds for overturning a lot of bans.
That is, if Roberts ever takes a 2A case again.
They didn't rule that they can be sued. They just didn't block the case.
I'd imagine it's all Roberts. The guy is just dickless. He knows what's right but he turns away anything controversial so he doesn't have to rule on it.
It's effectively the same thing right? It clears the way for Remington to be sued and there's no higher court to prevent it, so it goes to court if I understand the results of their ruling.
BoringGuy45
11-12-19, 10:37
It's effectively the same thing right? It clears the way for Remington to be sued and there's no higher court to prevent it, so it goes to court if I understand the results of their ruling.
They didn't block the suit from going forward, but they didn't acknowledge that the case was valid. The SC just basically punted.
They didn't block the suit from going forward, but they didn't acknowledge that the case was valid. The SC just basically punted.
This is my interpretation but I’m sure the media will spin this as another victory. Then when Remington wins the case just ignore it.. or claim it’s a partisan court.
They didn't block the suit from going forward, but they didn't acknowledge that the case was valid. The SC just basically punted.
Punted it to where? That's the highest court in the land, so where can it go from here? Does that not now allow the case to move forward as far as a lawsuit against Remington? There's no other court left to block it, so whether they said it has merit or not seems like that will now get decided in a court of law via a case right? What am I missing?
Grand58742
11-12-19, 11:15
If I'm to understand, they aren't suing on the basis of the weapon itself, but rather the marketing practices.
Which is pretty effin lame if you ask me.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/business/remington-sandy-hook-supreme-court/index.html
A survivor and families of nine other victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting are attempting to hold Remington Arms Company, the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the crime, partly responsible by targeting the company's marketing strategy.
Lawyers for the victims sued Remington contending that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.
The rifle was "designed as a military weapon" and "engineered to deliver maximum carnage" with extreme efficiency, they argue in legal briefs.
Basically, they aren't suing because it's an evil gun. They are suing Remington for marketing said evil gun.
Oh please put me on that jury. Please please please...
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-19, 14:39
It has something to do with the marketing. I think that is the issue. It always seem like right wing stuff gets shot down for 'standing' and if not that punted back for clarification from a lower court, who can then tailor their argument as a do-over. When it comes to Gay marriage, we saw both. The people that actual wrote PRop 8 in Cali for some reason didn't have standing to defend it. And when it went to SCOTUS, they went full gay agenda.
They didn't block the suit from going forward, but they didn't acknowledge that the case was valid. The SC just basically punted.
Isn't that what they do best?
They didn't block the suit from going forward, but they didn't acknowledge that the case was valid. The SC just basically punted.
Exactly.
SCOTUS decided to let the case go forward, then rule on it later (or hope a lower court does and they can decline) after the merits of the case are formally presented (PLCAA has some exceptions like negligence, criminal acts etc).
However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see how Remington could be liable for a gun that was not sold to the shooter, but was obtained by the shooter after murdering the owner, so SCOTUS should have shot this down and saved everyone some grief.
Punted it to where? That's the highest court in the land, so where can it go from here? Does that not now allow the case to move forward as far as a lawsuit against Remington? There's no other court left to block it, so whether they said it has merit or not seems like that will now get decided in a court of law via a case right? What am I missing?
Yes the case moves forward, but they can appeal the case AFTER a verdict is rendered, just like any other case. What they did not get was a a priori dismissal.
Being sued has nothing to do guilt. It is all about lawyers making money. When you get sued your insurance company weighs the cost of fighting it against is what it will cost to settle. The majority of suits involving insured defendants get settled on the courthouse steps. The only loser is the consumer. Why do you think healthcare is so expensive?
Being sued has nothing to do guilt. It is all about lawyers making money. When you get sued your insurance company weighs the cost of fighting it against is what it will cost to settle. The majority of suits involving insured defendants get settled on the courthouse steps. The only loser is the consumer. Why do you think healthcare is so expensive?
Because we have a hodge-podge, for profit system which other developed countries laugh at.
Re: the lawsuit. If I were a lawyer, I'd tell firearms companies to market their guns as target and hunting guns. We'd all know better, but that's what the marketing would look like in court.
SomeOtherGuy
11-12-19, 16:04
SCOTUS decided to let the case go forward, then rule on it later (or hope a lower court does and they can decline) after the merits of the case are formally presented (PLCAA has some exceptions like negligence, criminal acts etc).
SCOTUS may or may not rule later, they just aren't doing anything now. They do this on the vast majority of cases that seek their review.
However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see how Remington could be liable for a gun that was not sold to the shooter, but was obtained by the shooter after murdering the owner, so SCOTUS should have shot this down and saved everyone some grief.
The theory as far as I can tell, which is somewhere between frivolous and insane, is that because the AR in their view is a military "weapon of war" that has no legitimate civilian use, ANY marketing of the rifle is by definition fraudulent marketing because the rifle has no, in their view, proper civilian use. They are basically just assuming the conclusion they want and using a largely unrelated law to try and get it.
The proper treatment of this case by any court would be dismissal and sanctions on the plaintiff lawyers. Of course I don't hold out much hope that will happen. I'm amazed and appalled at some of the BS cases that are neither dismissed nor sanctioned in ordinary commercial disputes that have zero to do with politics.
It always seem like right wing stuff gets shot down for 'standing' and
Standing isn't the issue here, but the general spirit of your statement seems right. It seems as if legal technicalities and intentional misapplication of laws always work against "our side" in any RKBA cases.
I'm surprised this case hasn't been adopted by some random judge in the 9th Circuit who will somehow find Trump is to blame and must be impeached over it.
Because we have a hodge-podge, for profit system which other developed countries laugh at.
Re: the lawsuit. If I were a lawyer, I'd tell firearms companies to market their guns as target and hunting guns. We'd all know better, but that's what the marketing would look like in court.
I'd be all for not for profit healthcare, so long as it was constitutionally mandated that government have 0.0% involvement in it.
Yes the case moves forward, but they can appeal the case AFTER a verdict is rendered, just like any other case. What they did not get was a a priori dismissal.
Rgr rgr.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-19, 17:09
https://www.guns.com/news/2015/06/19/judge-berates-brady-group-in-lucky-gunner-settlement
Maybe Remington can make money on it...
For the gun grabbers it’s a win win. All this publicity is worth the $250k it might cost them, they tie up a company, and when they lose, they can have all,kinds of articles about how the gun companies took their kids and now the parents have to pay them for it. This isn’t a constitutional protection, it is a law that probably won’t survive the next time the Dems own all three house, senate and WH.
The_War_Wagon
11-12-19, 18:17
Isn't this the SAME suit that Daley lost in Chicago 21 years ago TODAY? :angry:
It's effectively the same thing right? It clears the way for Remington to be sued and there's no higher court to prevent it, so it goes to court if I understand the results of their ruling.
Ever since the million dollar McDonalds coffee case, I think these things became inevitable. The problem is you can't sue Adam Lanza or his mom, so they look around and see who has the deep pockets.
The firearms confiscation crowd has no shortage of funds and the monies they could get from a lawsuit aren't even the primary goal. They want to get legal precedent to further their goal of disarming everyone who shouldn't have a firearm in their eyes. In case you're wondering who that is, it's everyone who doesn't have a .gov job or connection to obtain a special permit.
The suit is very narrow in scope. It is based on a loophole in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act about marketing. Specifically the lawyers for the families are claiming they have the right to sue based on how the gun was marketed.
Excerpt from When Can the Firearm Industry Be Sued? by CRS - (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10292.pdf) "Plaintiffs contend, for example, that the defendants encouraged using the Bushmaster for “waging war and killing human beings,” as opposed to using the rifle for lawful purposes, such as hunting, target practice, or self-defense. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants’ marketing contributed to the victims’ injuries because the assailant, who “had dreamed as a child” of joining the U.S. Army and thus was “especially susceptible to militaristic marketing,” had selected the Bushmaster, among other available firearms, to bring to Sandy Hook because of its marketed association with military use."
SCOTUS did nothing wrong here. They get between 7-8 thousand cases filed every year. They only accept around a 100. The case is so trivial, why would they deal with it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-13-19, 17:47
I'd like to see the actual ads that they ran that has them running afoul of the protections.
Ford uses military grade aluminum in their trucks, I see 'military grade' encryption touted by some laptops. That doesn't make my Truck and M113 and me James Bond.
I do think that some of the adverts are over the top.
I'd like to see the actual ads that they ran that has them running afoul of the protections.
Ford uses military grade aluminum in their trucks, I see 'military grade' encryption touted by some laptops. That doesn't make my Truck and M113 and me James Bond.
I do think that some of the adverts are over the top.
One of the things Remington was trying to stave off was the discovery process by the plaintiff's lawyers. Now the plaintiffs can basically require Remington to turn over pretty much any internal records that exist.
Ever since the million dollar McDonalds coffee case, I think these things became inevitable. The problem is you can't sue Adam Lanza or his mom, so they look around and see who has the deep pockets.
Actually, if you read the details of the McDonald's case you very well may draw the conclusion that it was a justified suit.
The Automobile folks are gonna love this...
Especially due to the “marketing” angle of the suit. Let me paint a picture:
Some satan of a kid sees a Ford Mustang commercial, the car doing some crazy drifting and burnouts and launch-control starts, etc. Goes and steals a mustang, immediately does all the badass stuff in the adverts, wipes out into a school bus and kills 20 kids. Ford can now get sued. Ford did not sell a car to that kid. The kid stole it and misused it. Doesn’t matter. “Professional Driver On A Closed Course.” Doesn’t matter.
MorphCross
11-14-19, 03:12
Can anyone tell me how many military vehicles have Aluminum stamping as their frames? I can wait for responses...:sarcastic:
On healthcare, the costs have to do with the insurance paperwork hospitals and doctor offices deal with as much as any other factor. I support a pharmaceutical company that owns a patent on a drug getting to determine the price on that drug as long as a generic will be released after 15-20 years of sole source ownership by the original developer. Patents force companies to develop original alternatives that could be more effective or sufficiently effective while having less side effects. At that point the free market gets to determine if solution Alpha is worth the cost over solution Gamma, or if Solution Omega is good enough at an even lower price.
I would say the same thing of surgeons charging more for their expertise on a difficult procedure based on the outcomes spread across a wide patient pool.
Setting minor fractures, x-rays, and other common procedures should not have extremely high costs. Just like Ambulance rides should be a stable price near major metropolitan areas. Life Flight should only be used in the most extreme of scenarios i.e. getting a person in a remote locale where hospitals are hours away.
Getting back to the original topic, we all know the motive is money driven by the lawyers of the families. Judgements can be appealed and often get heavily trimmed in the appeal process. This case seeks to assign responsibility where we know there is none. Judges are Lawyers that have been appointed to a position paid from tax dollars so it is of little surprise that Tort law gets so much leeway.
SomeOtherGuy
11-14-19, 09:01
Actually, if you read the details of the McDonald's case you very well may draw the conclusion that it was a justified suit.
Agree. People like to hold that up as the peak of abuse but it is more justified than a majority of tort lawsuits out there. The coffee was at over 180 degrees and McDonald's had had numerous complaints about how ridiculously hot their coffee was over a long period of time. There was no justification to serve coffee that hot. For comparison, household water heaters are usually set at 125 and rarely over 140 because of the burn danger. The woman who was injured suffered severe burns on her crotch and thighs. The case was simple: severe physical injuries caused by a known dangerous condition that had no justification and which the defendant had been repeatedly warned about.
Especially due to the “marketing” angle of the suit. Let me paint a picture:
Some satan of a kid sees a Ford Mustang commercial, the car doing some crazy drifting and burnouts and launch-control starts, etc. Goes and steals a mustang, immediately does all the badass stuff in the adverts, wipes out into a school bus and kills 20 kids. Ford can now get sued. Ford did not sell a car to that kid. The kid stole it and misused it. Doesn’t matter. “Professional Driver On A Closed Course.” Doesn’t matter.
Realistic. Arriving within a few years no doubt. (seriously)
The biggest threat to our legal system is that we have a very dumbed down jury pool. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe things that simply aren't true and have no legal basis. We all know Lanza sat in his basement playing violent video games all day every day. We know the brand of AR and company marketing had no real role in what he was telling his mom to buy. He was killing pixels on his tv screen with an AR and he wanted an AR, end of story. So we can look at the causal order of this event and see it was:
Lanza
Lanza's mom
School
Video game companies
Gun manufacturer
Ammo manufacturer
All other companies whose product(s) were utilized in the crime
We know video game manufacturers have deeper pockets than gun companies, so why not go there first? Because they wrapped themselves in the 1st Amendment and suddenly they're off limits legally. RemingBushmasterton wrapped themselves in the 2nd Amendment and that makes them the Rodney Dangerfield of defendants. They're a ripe target for an emotional jury pool shown bloody kid corpse images and they will find for plaintiffs.
If Remington loses this case (or even if they don't), most gun manufacturers will simply change their marketing practices and this will be a one off. It's just another skirmish in the never ending battle to save our rights.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-14-19, 10:09
It's bullet proof!!!
https://di-uploads-pod7.dealerinspire.com/capitalfordlincolnwinnipeg/uploads/2016/12/HERO-F150-2.jpg
Oddly, they are pushing the "MIL' angle, the weight savings and fuel economy improvement, and the recycling aspect...
Actually, I was really hoping that the new Jeep would have an Aluminium body.
I think if the gun grabbers lose, they have to reimburse the companies for legal fees...
Actually, if you read the details of the McDonald's case you very well may draw the conclusion that it was a justified suit.
I read it, since I believe the knees are not a place to store beverages, i have concluded it was not a justified suit. Glad to see most of it thrown out.
Ambulance rides should be a stable price near major metropolitan areas. Life Flight should only be used in the most extreme of scenarios i.e. getting a person in a remote locale where hospitals are hours away.
.
When a patient receives a bill for an “ambulance ride”, they are sometimes shocked that it costs more than an Uber. There’s a lot of costs that are obscure to those who don’t know what an ambulance is for. You don’t just pay for a “ride”. You have to pay the crew’s pitiful salary. And the Supervisor’s. Maintenance and fuel costs much more than a Corolla. And software ain’t free, some of which is required by law. Speaking of law, we need lawyers too. And a physician as a medical director.
Supplies and equipment is expensive, also. Zoll X cardiac monitor/defibrillator with bag and cables costs $28,000. While these expensive supplies and items may not get used on every patient, they are required on the ambulance for the patients that actually require emergency care. That said, we don’t charge for procedures here and instead seek reimbursement based on level of care or acuity (3 rates) plus mileage. My agency consistently finishes the year in the negative. Only our two busiest ambulances that are in urban areas near hospitals ever break even just by billing. The other dozen, the taxpayer makes up the difference. So, we’re definitely not overcharging.
While I rarely involve air transport, there are valid reasons to utilize them outside of extremely remote areas. These reasons may not be obvious unless you view them from inside the system.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.