SCOTUS Rules Gun Manufacturer Can be sued

[WillBrink]

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/...ed/2565344001/

[Outlander Systems]

Is anyone tired of all that winning, yet?

[Averageman]

The Automobile folks are gonna love this...

[BoringGuy45]

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.

[WillBrink]

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]

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.

[OldState]

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.

[WillBrink]

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]

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/busin...urt/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.

[Bulletdog]

Oh please put me on that jury. Please please please...