SCOTUS Rules Gun Manufacturer Can be sued

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

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.

[glocktogo]

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?

[Renegade]

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.

[Renegade]

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.

[GH41]

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?

[Uni-Vibe]

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]

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.

[glocktogo]

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.

[WillBrink]

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]

https://www.guns.com/news/2015/06/19...ner-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.