Remington V Soto

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • KJW

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 31, 2010
    184
    18
    Lamb's Crossing
    This is mind boggling. It's this type of decision that really makes me question if there's any hope of maintaining, let alone restoring, the principles of individual responsibility and freedom that the Constitution set out to establish and protect. How can there not even be a dissent? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.
    One of my favorite educators said, "A court of law is the only place an elephant can fly." Meaning that lawyers can twist language and reasoning into such pretzels that absurd conclusions result. I get that this decision simply lets the case go forward, but even that, at a minimum, seems like a tacit endorsement of the plaintiff's claim. A gun company makes a gun. The gun is legally purchased by a woman. Later, that woman is murdered and her gun stolen by her deranged son. (I think I read once that the gun was even in a safe, although I haven't been able to find convincing support for that this go round). The monstrous son then takes the stolen gun to a school and massacres children and staff. Who in their right mind can possibly feel that any culpability for this heinous crime rests with the gun manufacturer?
     

    russc2542

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Oct 24, 2015
    2,111
    83
    Columbus
    This is mind boggling. It's this type of decision that really makes me question if there's any hope of maintaining, let alone restoring, the principles of individual responsibility and freedom that the Constitution set out to establish and protect. How can there not even be a dissent? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.
    One of my favorite educators said, "A court of law is the only place an elephant can fly." Meaning that lawyers can twist language and reasoning into such pretzels that absurd conclusions result. I get that this decision simply lets the case go forward, but even that, at a minimum, seems like a tacit endorsement of the plaintiff's claim. A gun company makes a gun. The gun is legally purchased by a woman. Later, that woman is murdered and her gun stolen by her deranged son. (I think I read once that the gun was even in a safe, although I haven't been able to find convincing support for that this go round). The monstrous son then takes the stolen gun to a school and massacres children and staff. Who in their right mind can possibly feel that any culpability for this heinous crime rests with the gun manufacturer?

    Someone who stands to gain a TON of money in the case and gets paid regardless of the outcome.
    Liberals
     

    DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    22,185
    113
    Ripley County
    Can you imagine this ruling if it applied to auto manufacturers? Anyone who gets injured or worse by a drunk driver could sue the auto manufacturers.

    I see a bunch of cases coming just to break the gun industry in our country, and it will. This was a horrible decision.
     

    indykid

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 27, 2008
    11,859
    113
    Westfield
    Guessing some lawyer needs more money but the US court dropping it back to the Connecticut court. Not enough "i" dotted or "t" crossed?

    As for suing auto manufacturers for drunks who kill, don't forget to add the alcohol manufacturer as well. Might as well get the lawyers as much money as possible.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    Guy Relford’s comment on his FB page.

    “I am disappointed that SCOTUS denied review of this case - but the underlying opinion is a lot more limited than is being reported. (So all the "now I can sue the fork manufacturers for making me fat" posts are a bit misplaced.)”
     

    Ziggidy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 7, 2018
    7,270
    113
    Ziggidyville
    Can Remington turn around and take legal action against the criminal and their family? Using their product in a manner that is dangerous to others? In addition, can they take legal action against the local school and such, claiming the counselors failed to prevent an individual from utilizing their product in a manner not intended and cause death?

    When something is used in a manner it was not intended for, in spite of warnings, what crime was committed?
     

    wakproductions

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 19, 2012
    441
    18
    Indianapolis
    Hey don't panic guys. From what I'm reading, it seems SCOTUS only turned down a motion to dismiss the case. The case will proceed and arguments will be heard. Remington can still probably win, and force the opposition to cover legal fees.
     

    AmmoManAaron

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Feb 20, 2015
    3,334
    83
    I-get-around
    Hey don't panic guys. From what I'm reading, it seems SCOTUS only turned down a motion to dismiss the case. The case will proceed and arguments will be heard. Remington can still probably win, and force the opposition to cover legal fees.

    Under the PLCAA, is should have been dismissed. That said, I hope you are right about Remington being able to win and recover the legal fees.
     

    russc2542

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Oct 24, 2015
    2,111
    83
    Columbus
    Can Remington turn around and take legal action against the criminal and their family? Using their product in a manner that is dangerous to others? In addition, can they take legal action against the local school and such, claiming the counselors failed to prevent an individual from utilizing their product in a manner not intended and cause death?

    When something is used in a manner it was not intended for, in spite of warnings, what crime was committed?

    That's far far too logical for Joe Public. Of course not because Remington's the bad guy. They're a gun mfr and guns are evil therefore they are evil. It's like trying to convince a devout religious person their god doesn't exist. Of course it does because that's how the world works.

    These things are not based in logic and thus cannot be won by logical arguments. That's where we are at a disadvantage. They can do or say whatever and have little to lose by being wrong because they have the backing of the sheeple masses that agree. They don't have to be right, they just have to agree.

    Like the stereotype about arguing with your female significant other. she's mad so you're wrong. It doesn't matter if you're right, you're still wrong. If you ARE right, that just makes her more upset and therefor you more wrong. If you argue about it you're a bad person just for arguing. If you have evidence or, god forbid can prove it, then you're an even worse person deliberately arguing with her because you hate her and it's irrelevant because you're still a horrible person for arguing.

    yes, I speak from experience. no, we aren't together anymore. My wife, on the other hand, bless her heart, sometimes spontaneously bursts out laughing (or laugh-crying if she's upset) out of the blue because she had a whole conversation/argument with me in her head, I was right, and she's logical enough to recognize it but is still frustrated by it. Then because I'm curious what our talk was about, she has to tell me both sides while I nod in agreement with myself-in-her-head.
     
    Last edited:

    NyleRN

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Dec 14, 2013
    3,834
    113
    Scottsburg
    It's my understanding that Remington is being sued not because they made the gun but because they advertised their weapons as tools to kill. There's a difference there. Jeep can't be liable if some drunk driver kills someone in a Cherokee. But if Jeep advertises their product to not only crawl over rocks but can crawl over people too, then someone proceeds to run over a group of people in a Jeep, then they can be liable. This is the angle that Soto is trying to attack
     
    Last edited:

    jedi

    Da PinkFather
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    51   0   0
    Oct 27, 2008
    37,669
    113
    NWI, North of US-30
    And the ad is something along the lines of "recover your mancard" which was implied that if you buy their ar15 you can get your man card back.

    Funny how the killer did not even buy the gun. A female, his mom, actually bought it.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,043
    77
    Southside Indy
    And the ad is something along the lines of "recover your mancard" which was implied that if you buy their ar15 you can get your man card back.

    Funny how the killer did not even buy the gun. A female, his mom, actually bought it.

    Are you assuming his mom's gender??? *TRIGGERED*
     

    jedi

    Da PinkFather
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    51   0   0
    Oct 27, 2008
    37,669
    113
    NWI, North of US-30
    His mom was a biological female.
    I wrote female because the colt ad the group suing said it was targeting males to buy a weapon of war in order to affirm their manhood via their man card.

    Yet the owner of the rifle used was actually a female.
     
    Top Bottom