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

[OakRiver]

This will be a very interesting case, and will have a lot of potential impact outside of the firearm community. I don't personally believe that this should have made it to the jury, instead it should have been ruled in Bushmaster's favor summarily.

Even if the marketing becomes an issue the person who was influenced by the marketing, and who purchased the rifle, was murdered and the rifle stolen. It was then used to murder innocent children. That was a deliberate action. This was not negligence, so the level of training of the end user should not be a factor.

If this were any other product on the market I cannot see a judge allowing this case to progress. If Person A kills Person B, steals Person B's knife, and uses that knife to go on a stabbing rampage what reasonable person would believe that the knife manufacturer is liable?

 

[Fallschirmjaeger]

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.

Plus (I may be remembering the facts wrong), wasn't the lawful purchaser of the rifle the mother of the POS? The same POS who killed his mom and then murdered those poor kids? What possible bearing does the level of training of the lawful purchaser matter if an intervening cause of the tragedy was a murdering thief? Maybe the mom was a highly trained and qualified marksman. But she didn't kill a bunch of kids.

Even accepted on its terms, the legal holding is bizarre in that it seems to excuse from liability a company who sells to an expert marksman (as opposed to an untrained thug) who then goes on to efficiently murder a bunch of people.

There's so much illogic afoot it's hard to know where to begin. Putting aside the federal preemption of such lawsuits.

 

[KG1]

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.

You’re exactly right on the “military style” weapon point since the action of the rifle basically fuctions and has shooting properties no different from any other semi-auto.

Meaning one pull of the trigger means one round fired.

 

[DRob]

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

Agreed. I'm not trying to argue the case. Just pointing out what the article says.

 

[chipbennett]

You’re exactly right on the “military style” weapon point since the action of the rifle basically fuctions and has shooting properties no different from any other semi-auto.

Meaning one pull of the trigger means one round fired.

This is a non-trivial point. The CT Supreme Court decision explicitly states "assault rifle" - NOT "assault weapon". The AR15 in question is, in fact, not an "assault rifle", which has a specific definition.

 

[Floivanus]

This is a non-trivial point. The CT Supreme Court decision explicitly states "assault rifle" - NOT "assault weapon". The AR15 in question is, in fact, not an "assault rifle", which has a specific definition.

Oh quit gunsplaining

 

[rob63]

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.

 

[Libertarian01]

I don't believe that firearms manufacturers should be immune from lawsuits, only so long as their product functions as it was intended.

If I buy a new gun and it blows up in my hand, with normal ammunition, I should be able to sue the heck out of the manufacturer. However, if the product functions as it was intended then, in my opinion, no one should be able to sue the manufacturer, period.

Say a small child reaches into a food processor and looses a hand. While this is horrible and a true tragedy for the kid, the fact is the food processor functioned just as it was designed to do. The company should be immune from civil liability due to the general idea that some of the stuff we make IS intentionally dangerous. Lawn care machines, kitchen machines, any number of tools, etc. So someone goes out and watches the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and uses their Stihl to whack the neighbor, Stihl shouldn't have to worry one whit.

Now, if the company directly marketed their product to maliciously kill people, maybe, just maybe, could I see a lawsuit. Otherwise, nope.

I don't even consider the Sandy Hook shooter a criminal. He was tragically a person suffering from a mental disorder, probably near Asberger's Syndrome, and had no clear method of thinking. As shooting can teach self control and discipline his mother was using it to try to get him to focus better. Sadly, her best intentions failed and a broken kid hurt many more people. Just because he was intelligent doesn't mean he was in logical, disciplined control of his own behavior. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see mostly just victims here. Sometimes tragedies have no one to blame.

I do hope that in the end SCOTUS overturns this. First, for the issues of the false premises of the case mentioned above. Second, because in the end the only one who should have to suffer in court should be responsible, and I don't see that here.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

I don't believe that firearms manufacturers should be immune from lawsuits, only so long as their product functions as it was intended.

If I buy a new gun and it blows up in my hand, with normal ammunition, I should be able to sue the heck out of the manufacturer. However, if the product functions as it was intended then, in my opinion, no one should be able to sue the manufacturer, period.

Say a small child reaches into a food processor and looses a hand. While this is horrible and a true tragedy for the kid, the fact is the food processor functioned just as it was designed to do. The company should be immune from civil liability due to the general idea that some of the stuff we make IS intentionally dangerous. Lawn care machines, kitchen machines, any number of tools, etc. So someone goes out and watches the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and uses their Stihl to whack the neighbor, Stihl shouldn't have to worry one whit.

Now, if the company directly marketed their product to maliciously kill people, maybe, just maybe, could I see a lawsuit. Otherwise, nope.

I don't even consider the Sandy Hook shooter a criminal. He was tragically a person suffering from a mental disorder, probably near Asberger's Syndrome, and had no clear method of thinking. As shooting can teach self control and discipline his mother was using it to try to get him to focus better. Sadly, her best intentions failed and a broken kid hurt many more people. Just because he was intelligent doesn't mean he was in logical, disciplined control of his own behavior. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see mostly just victims here. Sometimes tragedies have no one to blame.

I do hope that in the end SCOTUS overturns this. First, for the issues of the false premises of the case mentioned above. Second, because in the end the only one who should have to suffer in court should be responsible, and I don't see that here.

Regards,

Doug

Agree.

 

[MarkC]

I don't believe that firearms manufacturers should be immune from lawsuits, only so long as their product functions as it was intended.

If I buy a new gun and it blows up in my hand, with normal ammunition, I should be able to sue the heck out of the manufacturer. However, if the product functions as it was intended then, in my opinion, no one should be able to sue the manufacturer, period.

Say a small child reaches into a food processor and looses a hand. While this is horrible and a true tragedy for the kid, the fact is the food processor functioned just as it was designed to do. The company should be immune from civil liability due to the general idea that some of the stuff we make IS intentionally dangerous. Lawn care machines, kitchen machines, any number of tools, etc. So someone goes out and watches the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and uses their Stihl to whack the neighbor, Stihl shouldn't have to worry one whit.

Now, if the company directly marketed their product to maliciously kill people, maybe, just maybe, could I see a lawsuit. Otherwise, nope.

I don't even consider the Sandy Hook shooter a criminal. He was tragically a person suffering from a mental disorder, probably near Asberger's Syndrome, and had no clear method of thinking. As shooting can teach self control and discipline his mother was using it to try to get him to focus better. Sadly, her best intentions failed and a broken kid hurt many more people. Just because he was intelligent doesn't mean he was in logical, disciplined control of his own behavior. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see mostly just victims here. Sometimes tragedies have no one to blame.

I do hope that in the end SCOTUS overturns this. First, for the issues of the false premises of the case mentioned above. Second, because in the end the only one who should have to suffer in court should be responsible, and I don't see that here.

Regards,

Doug

I agree with everything you say here, but especially the highlighted part about this person not being a criminal. Much like the Parkland tragedy, the mental health system failed when this person had been identified.

However, I also believe that although the Sandy Hook shooter was a person with severe mental health issues, people in that condition and society deserve to be protected. Unfortunately, as psychology is not an exact science (or sometimes even really close to a science), identifying and properly determining what the response should be.

Deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people in the 1970's and later served the liberty interests of many of those who had been merely warehoused in custodial mental health placements, but also ejected a large number of people who couldn't care for themselves out into the (frequently) cold, cruel world. Now that the facilities and the beds are gone, it is hard to get the funding to create the capacity to take care of those who need it, both for their own and society's safety.

 

[MarkC]

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.

 

[LCSOSgt11]

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.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

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.

 

[terrehautian]

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

 

[Restroyer]

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.

 

[K_W]

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.

 

[churchmouse]

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.

 

[Cameramonkey]

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!

 

[DadSmith]

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.

 

[Disgruntled0321]

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.