Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68
  1. #51
    Expert MarkC's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rob63 View Post
    Let's hope the higher courts strike this down, otherwise, it will become the model in every other liberal controlled state. California and New York will be quick to pass whatever law it takes to do the same thing. It won't be possible for any gun related company to do any advertising at all. I don't think there would be any limit to the lunacy, you could have the families of dead criminals suing them for advertising that their products can be used for self-defense.
    I think you're spot on here. The only court that could hear and overturn this is SCOTUS, as the Connecticut Supreme Court has the last say on matters purely of Connecticut law, but SCOTUS could take the case because of Connecticut's misapplication of the federal law.

    Unfortunately, SCOTUS taking the case is far from a sure thing.

    I share your concern that if this stands, other states that are anti-gun will see this exception created by Connecticut and enact their own, similar state laws and interpret them as their own exceptions to the PLCAA.

  2. #52
    Sharpshooter LCSOSgt11's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Another failure of judges. One would think that the CT Supreme Court would be familiar with current federal statutes with regard to firearms use. Of course, they apparently think that this weapon just got up, sauntered down the street and started murdering people. It was unfortunate in the extreme that this tragedy occurred, however, since the responsible party is no longer here to answer for it, let's just sue the company that made the instrumentality.

    Wonderful logic. That is akin to suing every motor vehicle manufacturer for drunk driving deaths. Of course, money talks and BS walks. I am convinced that there is an attorney or two that are sharpening their claws to get a payday out of this, and in the end, that is what this suit (and many other such suits) are all about.
    LCSOSgt11
    "May God protect those when in mortal combat, remember FRONT SIGHT, PRESS.

  3. #53
    Homo Ludens GPIA7R's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    SCOTUS has declined to take up Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, the Sandy Hook families' case against a firearm manufacturer.

    Connecticut's highest court had ruled that a federal law immunizing gun manufacturers from certain suits did not apply. That ruling stands.
    All play means something.

  4. #54
    Master

    User Info Menu

    This will have farther ramifications other then this lawsuit. Hopefully the jury nullifies the lawsuit and common sense wins.

  5. #55
    Sharpshooter Restroyer's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I saw this today on the news. Not Good. If SCOTUS allows every family member of a gun death to sue the gun manufacturers it could be a way of putting gun makers out of business. I also wonder if SCOTUS realized the precedent they were setting: future lawsuits on everything from beer companies to vehicles being held liable in people's deaths.

  6. #56
    K_W
    K_W is offline
    Grandmaster K_W's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Unless I am mistaken... this is about the marketing of the gun, rather than the manufacture, not that it makes the case in any way valid.

    It's like suing Dodge because they marketed the Challenger as a big powerful car and that made the guy at the Charlottesville rally decide to use it run over the protesters.

    Dodge in no way intended, marketed, or implied that their car would be suitable for running over innocent people just as Remington in no way intended, marketed, or implied that their gun would be suitable for mass murder... but also in the case of Remington the shooter didn't even buy the gun based on marketing, he murdered the original buyer in order to steal it.

    Yes the case is as flimsy and stupid as it sounds.
    Last edited by K_W; 4 Weeks Ago at 07:25.

  7. #57
    I still care....Really
    churchmouse's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by K_W View Post
    Unless I am mistaken... this is about the marketing of the gun, rather the manufacture, not that it makes the case in any way valid.

    It's like suing Dodge because they marketed the Challenger as a big powerful car and that made the guy at the Charlottesville rally decide to use it run over the protesters.

    Dodge in no way intended, marketed, or implied that their car would be suitable for running over innocent people just as Remington in no way intended, marketed, or implied that their gun would be suitable for mass murder... but also in the case of Remington the shooter didn't even buy the gun based on marketing, he murdered the original buyer in order to steal it.

    Yes the case is as flimsy and stupid as it sounds.
    OK lets step back and see this for exactly what it is....another nail in the 2-A coffin.
    AKA..Thor. Odin son. God of thunder.
    But you can call me John.....Force.

    Forum Rules

    Classified Rules

    FAQ

    http://ingunowners.com/forums/handgu...e-posting.html

  8. #58
    Grandmaster Cameramonkey's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Yep. Next step is suing Jim Beam and Ford when Haven drives drunk in his mustang and kills a family of 4 on their way to church. Nobody needs a car that fast!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman View Post
    A confused cop is an arresty cop.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosierdoc View Post
    also, where do we sign up to touch Frank's equipment?

  9. #59
    Marksman DadSmith's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cameramonkey View Post
    Yep. Next step is suing Jim Beam and Ford when Haven drives drunk in his mustang and kills a family of 4 on their way to church. Nobody needs a car that fast!
    They definitely target young men in ads. They should be concerned by this ruling as well. It can only get worse.
    Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

  10. #60
    Plinker Disgruntled0321's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Its going to set a bad precedent in which the manufacturers will be forced into bankruptcy. Its ridiculous that any judge would rule that someone could sue the manufacturers of firearms because that particular type of firearm was used in the unlawful taking of a life or had unlawfully harmed someone or their family.
    My heart goes out to all those who lost loved ones! While what happened was tragic noone can blame any inadamant object for any of it. It wasnt the firearm or its manufacturers fault that this tragedy happened. It was because of the actions of an evil person. Hopefully the ruling will be overturned.


Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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