Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: SCOTUS Rules Gun Manufacturer Can be sued

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Urban Cessmaze
    Posts
    4,843
    Feedback Score
    25 (100%)
    Isn't this the SAME suit that Daley lost in Chicago 21 years ago TODAY?
    - Either you're part of the problem or you're part of the solution or you're just part of the landscape - Sam (Robert DeNiro) in, "Ronin" -

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    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.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    831
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.
    ~Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,688
    Feedback Score
    40 (100%)
    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,383
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,211
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    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.
    Scout Rider for the Mongol Hordes

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,211
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    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.
    Scout Rider for the Mongol Hordes

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    559
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Averageman View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Liberty, MO
    Posts
    844
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Can anyone tell me how many military vehicles have Aluminum stamping as their frames? I can wait for responses...

    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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,618
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by caporider View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    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)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •