Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life

Supreme Court ruling on Remington suit

Recommended Posts

Just heard that the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case against Remington brought by the Sandy Hook victims. That means that the suit against Remington can go forward. Does not bode well for Remington and could also mean lots of lawsuits against other gun manufacturers in the future. Pandora's box just got opened! God help us.................

  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am unhappy at the decision by SCOTUS,  this seems to be a ruling on Remington's advertising of the rifle and whether Remington bears any liability due to how the rifle was advertised.   I'm interested in what the lawyers here think of the ruling as well as an analysis of this decision from one of the legal blogs I follow. 

 

This ruling does NOT overturn the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and even under that act gun manufacturers could be sued.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By refusing to block the lawsuit, the SCOTUS allowed it to go forward at the state level. No doubt, it will go through federal courts, and ultimately back to the Supremes.  They may be buying time to think over what each justice thinks before it works its way up to them.  I hope, the high court would then overrule any decisions and judgments.  If not, it bodes ill for virtually ANY company in or out of the gun industry if their advertising isn't just right. For example, suppose a lawnmower company advertises its product to be good for your grass, but ultimately your lawn dies because you cut it too short. You might sue because their ads didn't warn you not to cut the lawn too short!  Time will tell... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the fact that the perpetrator committed First Degree Murder to obtain said firearm is not relevant? :(

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make your next purchase a Remington. ;)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "ruling" is a decline by the Supreme Court to hear the case at this stage-- an appeal/certiorari petition from the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision to allow the case to go forward. It is not a ruling on any substantive issues. It is very common for the US Supreme Court to deny such petitions at that level. It does not foreclose review by the Court from an adverse decision against Remington if that is what eventuates.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that when the Supreme Court declines to hear a case that the lower court’s ruling stands. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this open up possible lawsuits against car manufacturers, chain saw companies, knife companies, hmm let's what else? Donut companies, McDonald's?? How about airline companies, the list is endless really......................

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of holding gun manufacturers liable for, umm... manufacturing GUNS is completely absurd. If the law says they're legal to sell to the public then these people should be told to either go pound sand or write to their Congressman (or Congresswoman, or Congressit). Unfortunately however so many courts flipped left during the last administration that we now have lawsuits dictating the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was wrong with their advertising?

 

I didn't even know Remington made an AR type rifle at the time sandy hook happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the R-15 came out in '08 or '09. Sandy Hook was 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remington owns Bushmaster, which was the brand of firearm used in the massacre. Apparently the lawsuit takes aim at Remington for all the Bushmaster ads in gun magazines that tout the AR-15 as anything but a hunting weapon, plus I guess there was some name-dropping in video games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it eventually gets back to SCOTUS the ruling will favor Remington.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gunner Gatlin, SASS # 10274 said:

When it eventually gets back to SCOTUS the ruling will favor Remington.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

You have more faith than I do.

 

I'm afraid the next D president will somehow invalidate the current POTUS picks and stack the court with liberal judges :(

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/business/remington-sandy-hook-supreme-court/index.html

 

Lawyers for the victims sued Remington contending that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.
The rifle was "designed as a military weapon" and "engineered to deliver maximum carnage" with extreme efficiency, they argue in legal briefs.
 
...was "designed as a military weapon"
 
So was my Colt 1860 Army. And my Single Action Army.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

You have more faith than I do.

 

I'm afraid the next D president will somehow invalidate the current POTUS picks and stack the court with liberal judges :(

 

 

The next D president will invalidate everything.

 

I think Spain is trying to do that now with everything that was passed during the Franco years.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...will the surviving families of DUI victims be able to sue General Motors after this debacle has been settled ?

 

What a shit show our national debate has become.

 

 

 

Edited by Chuck Steak
  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I thought that when the Supreme Court declines to hear a case that the lower court’s ruling stands. 

 

It does for now. It means that the case can proceed to trial in the state court in Connecticut. Any final judgment from a verdict can be appealed thereafter, including ultimately to the Supreme Court (which will continue to have the discretion to hear it or not).

 

The current Supreme Court decision not to hear the case at this stage is not a ruling by the Supreme Court on any of the merits of the suit. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sandy Hook families are not out to make Remington assume liability for anything. Remington didn't put that rifle in the killer's hands and they know it. They flat out want to put them out of business for selling a firearm they don't believe they should be selling in the first place. If you can't ban 'em, sue them for every last red cent.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

You have more faith than I do.

 

I'm afraid the next D president will somehow invalidate the current POTUS picks and stack the court with liberal judges :(

 


....my comment was only about SCOTUS. Doubt we will get beyond the nine justices. Of course if that happens that probably means the end of the electoral college too....: Which also means the end of the United States of America. 
 

The reality is that in the next few years if this gets back to the Supreme Court they will rule in Remington’s favor. 

 

GG

Edited by Gunner Gatlin, SASS # 10274
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

Now that's a hoot!  They are saying it was deceptive advertising to liken it to a weapon of war.  So they will have to stand up in court and argue that it's not really a weapon of war or all that dangerous to make those ads deceptive. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 1:25 PM, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

The "ruling" is a decline by the Supreme Court to hear the case at this stage-- an appeal/certiorari petition from the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision to allow the case to go forward. It is not a ruling on any substantive issues. It is very common for the US Supreme Court to deny such petitions at that level. It does not foreclose review by the Court from an adverse decision against Remington if that is what eventuates.

 

 

Nicely stated.  What was sent to the Supremes is called an interlocutory appeal.  When matters are still pending and Motions are ruled upon, they can appeal, but the Supreme Court does not generally hear interlocutory appeals as the case isn't over and the outcome is not certain.

 

On 11/12/2019 at 1:59 PM, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I thought that when the Supreme Court declines to hear a case that the lower court’s ruling stands. 

It does.  But the lower court's ruling is not a final judgment or even close to one at this time.

 

It is all much ado about nothing at this point in time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocutory_appeal

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 12:23 PM, Sixgun Sheridan said:

...we now have lawsuits dictating the law.


This is the exact reason why there are so many crazy laws governing the operation of the prison system in CA.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.