Judge issues order on Sandy Hook / Remington lawsuit . . . . .

[ArcadiaGP]

Connecticut Supreme Court rules gun maker Remington can be sued over Sandy Hook mass shooting, AP reports.

See you at SCOTUS

 

[HoughMade]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

 

[Mark 1911]

The article states...

Nine Sandy Hook families argued, "Remington, headquartered in North Carolina, acted negligently by marketing and selling military-style weapons to untrained civilian buyers.

Although the judge rightfully dismissed the case based on immunity provided by PLCAA, the above argument is a false premise to begin with.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So, it seems to me that this opens the door for anyone injured by a drunk driver to sue the manufacturer of the vehicle they were driving, as well as the maker of the type of alcoholic beverage they were drinking. I see absolutely no difference in the scenarios. Crazy (drunk) person knowingly using their products to harm others. Fair is fair.

 

[seedubs1]

Oooooh.....This is such a fun ruling. Now we get to sue any manufacturer for the illegal misuse of their product.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Oooooh.....This is such a fun ruling. Now we get to sue any manufacturer for the illegal misuse of their product.

Right? Who's going to have deeper pockets, the person that is actually responsible for the act, or the manufacturers of their "tool"? This is a money grab, nothing less. Cue Leadeye...

 

[DRob]

Read up a little. Even the plaintiff's attorneys admit the case will have little, if any, impact outside Connecticut. According to the article, the claim is based on a Connecticut state law which is different than the Federal protections of lawful commerce involved.

 

[chipbennett]

Justices wrote in the majority opinion that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

Did the justices forget the part where the firearm owner - ostensibly, the only person whom the firearm manufacturer's advertising could have applied and for whom the firearm manufacturer's advertising could have influenced to purchase said firearm - did not use the firearm for unlawful purposes, because the perpetrator shot the owner and stole the firearm out of the firearm owner's locked gun safe?

ETA:

This appears to be a two-pronged attack. The second part is referenced above. The first part is far more pernicious:

The lawsuit said that the companies were wrong to entrust an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield.

Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.

Such an argument has nothing to do with advertising; it would call into question the legality of civilian ownership of an entire class of firearms.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[chipbennett]

 

[Floivanus]

Read up a little. Even the plaintiff's attorneys admit the case will have little, if any, impact outside Connecticut. According to the article, the claim is based on a Connecticut state law which is different than the Federal protections of lawful commerce involved.

Except Connecticut has no jurisdiction Remington is based in a different state, interstate commerce is a federal case, not to mention PLCAA comes into play.

is The lawyer in charge of this related to Karen Freeman? She threw money in the money hole over a case similar to this

 

[KG1]

The article states...



Although the judge rightfully dismissed the case based on immunity provided by PLCAA, the above argument is a false premise to begin with.

Does it matter if one is trained properly or not if the tool is used to commit a criminal act?

I mean the Sandy Hook incident wasn’t due to an accidental mishandling of a firearm.

 

[MarkC]

Except Connecticut has no jurisdiction Remington is based in a different state, interstate commerce is a federal case, not to mention PLCAA comes into play.

is The lawyer in charge of this related to Karen Freeman? She threw money in the money hole over a case similar to this

[emphasis added by MarkC]

International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

Primary Holding:

[FONT=&amp]Personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible when a defendant has minimum contacts with the state where a lawsuit is brought such that notions of fair play and substantial justice would not be offended.[/FONT]

 

[HoughMade]

[emphasis added by MarkC]

International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

Primary Holding:

[FONT=&amp]Personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible when a defendant has minimum contacts with the state where a lawsuit is brought such that notions of fair play and substantial justice would not be offended.[/FONT]

I haven't actually used International Shoe​ for anything since first semester Civ Pro.

 

[MarkC]

I think the dissent is correct, as they believe the Connecticut deceptive practices law is not the kind of state law violation contemplated as overcoming the protections of the PLCAA.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865E.pdf

 

[MarkC]

I haven't actually used International Shoe​ for anything since first semester Civ Pro.

It was the first thing that came to my limited mind after a long day of reading dry stuff for my day job.

 

[HoughMade]

It was the first thing that came to my limited mind after a long day of reading dry stuff for my day job.

Cite Pennoyer v. Neff properly in context (as you did with International Shoe) and you will have my eternal admiration...and pity.

 

[proud american]

Tobacco kills and the users are never blamed. The police arrived at Sandy Brook armed because guns save. Expalin PLCCA

 

[Mark 1911]

Does it matter if one is trained properly or not if the tool is used to commit a criminal act?

I mean the Sandy Hook incident wasn’t due to an accidental mishandling of a firearm.

That wasn't my thought when I said it was a false premise although your's is a valid point also. Which actually points out that there are at least two false premises:
1. The weapons sold by Remington used at Sandy Hook were not "military style" weapons, whatever that is supposed to mean. They were simply semi-automatic weapons.
2. There is no expectation, whether legal or otherwise, that purchasers of semi-automatic weapons need to be trained prior to purchasing them.

 

[Floivanus]

Tobacco kills and the users are never blamed. The police arrived at Sandy Brook armed because guns save. Expalin PLCCA

prove tobacco (on its own) kills, there’s just as much argument that the 280+ chemicals tobacco is tainted with do the killing that the plant itself; I’d make the argument that the added chemicals muddy the water for culpability of big tobacco. It’s akin to making guns that blow up in the end users hand, a defective or tainted product.

PLCAA is just protection in lawful commerce of arms, unless a defect causes death/harm a firearm company is good to go; see slidefire being cleared by the courts last year