Author Topic: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer  (Read 2894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« on: November 12, 2019, 11:29:14 AM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38928
  • Tommy Points: 6285
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-lets-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gunmaker-proceed

Wow, I did not see this one coming. The Supreme Court didn't take up the case of Sandy Hook victims families suing Remington in a wrongful death suit. Remington said the federal law protected them from this but the Supreme Court is allowing the case because it had to do with Remington's marketing of high powered weaponry to young people.

Remington has no liability yet, but it could eventually
and you can be assured this will most likely lead to more wrongful death suits, more litigation costs for the gun industry and possible calls to change the federal law regarding gun manufacturers liabilities as a whole.

You got to think that Remington and the NRA are apoplectic over this.

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2019, 11:48:14 AM »

Offline mobilija

  • Tacko Fall
  • Posts: 568
  • Tommy Points: 154
WOW!

Hit em where it hurts! In the wallet...

Good to see that if the Prez won't do something about gun control, at least his justices are, sort of. Action by in action.

Thanks for the post Nic

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2019, 11:55:33 AM »

Offline CelticsPoetry

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 282
  • Tommy Points: 23
What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2019, 11:58:19 AM »

Offline jambr380

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9489
  • Tommy Points: 1143
  • Ignoring mortality we worship mediocrity
What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

No...obviously. Guns are made for killing, cars are not (although far too many people die in auto accidents).

Interesting news, nick. Wouldn't that flip the gun industry on its head?

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2019, 12:02:53 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25551
  • Tommy Points: 1180
  • What a Pub Should Be
Just a reminder that there are still idiots out there who think this whole thing was a hoax.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2019, 12:23:19 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6884
  • Tommy Points: 102
This seems foolish to me. I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people. And if the people of this country would like to make gun manufacturers more accountable (though that itself seems a bit silly, since even a common, single-shot gun could be used to kill someone, and we're not gonna be able to ban all guns), then they can work to pass legislation that applies from this point forward—punishing gunmakers retroactively for something they were legally allowed to do seems unfair.

What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

An interesting aside: If we're not allowed to go beyond a certain speed, why are car manufacturers allowed to make cars that far exceed those speeds?
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2019, 01:11:14 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21806
  • Tommy Points: 9204
This seems foolish to me. I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people. And if the people of this country would like to make gun manufacturers more accountable (though that itself seems a bit silly, since even a common, single-shot gun could be used to kill someone, and we're not gonna be able to ban all guns), then they can work to pass legislation that applies from this point forward—punishing gunmakers retroactively for something they were legally allowed to do seems unfair.

What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

An interesting aside: If we're not allowed to go beyond a certain speed, why are car manufacturers allowed to make cars that far exceed those speeds?
the basis of the lawsuit is over how that particular gun was advertised.  There's a CNN article I saw on this earlier which I could see as a basis for the suit.  not too sure it'd succeed but I get where someone could make the case that the manufacturer violated CT law regarding the advertising. 

As for "I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people."  --> why else are guns made?  especially AR-15's.   Guns have one purpose -- Killing.  AR-15's have one purpose -- killing on a higher scale than a single-shot weapon.

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2019, 02:00:40 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39593
  • Tommy Points: -27313
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Ultimately, I am not sure that this means much of anything. Dismissals of cases at their outset are extremely rare. I’m sure that the Supreme Court didn’t want to get involved at this stage. However, after discovery is conducted Remington will inevitably file a motion for summary judgment, which is where a larger percentage of litigation is dismissed.  If the plaintiffs survive that motion, there is a third chance to appeal any jury verdict.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2019, 02:27:16 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4582
  • Tommy Points: 388
So.....it's the gun manufacturers fault some crazy person used their gun and shot up a school.

Any person that's underage and became pregnant or impregnated someone should be able to sue Trojan, and their school for marketing sex to them.


Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2019, 02:31:41 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4582
  • Tommy Points: 388
What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

No...obviously. Guns are made for killing, cars are not (although far too many people die in auto accidents).

Interesting news, nick. Wouldn't that flip the gun industry on its head?

Guns are not made and sold for the purpose of mass killings. Guns are sold for defense and sport.
In both cases, death results from negligence or willful intent to do harm.

Oklahoma city should've sued scotts for making fertilizer that appealed to do it yourself bombers.

If United didn't make flying so appealing, we might still have the WTC.

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2019, 02:35:12 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6884
  • Tommy Points: 102
This seems foolish to me. I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people. And if the people of this country would like to make gun manufacturers more accountable (though that itself seems a bit silly, since even a common, single-shot gun could be used to kill someone, and we're not gonna be able to ban all guns), then they can work to pass legislation that applies from this point forward—punishing gunmakers retroactively for something they were legally allowed to do seems unfair.

What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

An interesting aside: If we're not allowed to go beyond a certain speed, why are car manufacturers allowed to make cars that far exceed those speeds?
the basis of the lawsuit is over how that particular gun was advertised.  There's a CNN article I saw on this earlier which I could see as a basis for the suit.  not too sure it'd succeed but I get where someone could make the case that the manufacturer violated CT law regarding the advertising. 

As for "I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people."  --> why else are guns made?  especially AR-15's.   Guns have one purpose -- Killing.  AR-15's have one purpose -- killing on a higher scale than a single-shot weapon.

Guns are a perfectly legitimate way of defending your home and family against intruders, and also for hunting game. Pinning a mass slaughter of innocent people on a gun manufacturer seems to detract from the killer's personal responsibility.

And I would argue that guns don't have just one purpose (killing); some people just enjoy taking their guns to a shooting range and never actually killing anything, not even animals.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2019, 02:42:55 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9489
  • Tommy Points: 1143
  • Ignoring mortality we worship mediocrity
What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

No...obviously. Guns are made for killing, cars are not (although far too many people die in auto accidents).

Interesting news, nick. Wouldn't that flip the gun industry on its head?

Guns are not made and sold for the purpose of mass killings. Guns are sold for defense and sport.
In both cases, death results from negligence or willful intent to do harm.

Oklahoma city should've sued scotts for making fertilizer that appealed to do it yourself bombers.

If United didn't make flying so appealing, we might still have the WTC.

Nope, guns are made for killing and you aren't going to convince me otherwise.

Fertilizer is made to supply essential nutrients to plants. Planes are made for transportation. Condoms are made to STOP pregnancy and STDs.

If you want to claim guns are for gun ranges, then they can hold on to them for when you attend. I suppose if you desperately want to cling to the argument of hunting or protecting your home, then keep a single shot rifle locked in your home (I really don't want to get into this right now). No need for handguns, no need for assault rifles, no need for high capacity magazines - the sole purpose of these items is to kill people and gun manufacturers get off on freaking people out enough to want(need) more and more guns. It's insane.

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2019, 02:52:26 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21806
  • Tommy Points: 9204
This seems foolish to me. I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people. And if the people of this country would like to make gun manufacturers more accountable (though that itself seems a bit silly, since even a common, single-shot gun could be used to kill someone, and we're not gonna be able to ban all guns), then they can work to pass legislation that applies from this point forward—punishing gunmakers retroactively for something they were legally allowed to do seems unfair.

What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

An interesting aside: If we're not allowed to go beyond a certain speed, why are car manufacturers allowed to make cars that far exceed those speeds?
the basis of the lawsuit is over how that particular gun was advertised.  There's a CNN article I saw on this earlier which I could see as a basis for the suit.  not too sure it'd succeed but I get where someone could make the case that the manufacturer violated CT law regarding the advertising. 

As for "I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people."  --> why else are guns made?  especially AR-15's.   Guns have one purpose -- Killing.  AR-15's have one purpose -- killing on a higher scale than a single-shot weapon.

Guns are a perfectly legitimate way of defending your home and family against intruders, and also for hunting game. Pinning a mass slaughter of innocent people on a gun manufacturer seems to detract from the killer's personal responsibility.

And I would argue that guns don't have just one purpose (killing); some people just enjoy taking their guns to a shooting range and never actually killing anything, not even animals.
you don't need an AR-15 to hunt game nor defend your home.  if you need one to hunt -> become a better shot using a rifle.  no person nor animal deserves to be riddled with bullets for 'sport' just because someone needs a military-grade weapon to kill something.  if you need that type of weapon to defend your home, you should seriously be asking yourself why you're living there and who's out to get you.

no one's saying the killer isn't responsible for the killing.  no one's saying he manufacturer is even at fault.  what's at issue is the way the weapon was advertised to the public -- accentuating it's ability to take down your opponents. 

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2019, 03:12:12 PM »

Offline gift

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2054
  • Tommy Points: 190
What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

No...obviously. Guns are made for killing, cars are not (although far too many people die in auto accidents).

Interesting news, nick. Wouldn't that flip the gun industry on its head?

Guns are not made and sold for the purpose of mass killings. Guns are sold for defense and sport.
In both cases, death results from negligence or willful intent to do harm.

Oklahoma city should've sued scotts for making fertilizer that appealed to do it yourself bombers.

If United didn't make flying so appealing, we might still have the WTC.

Nope, guns are made for killing and you aren't going to convince me otherwise.

Fertilizer is made to supply essential nutrients to plants. Planes are made for transportation. Condoms are made to STOP pregnancy and STDs.

If you want to claim guns are for gun ranges, then they can hold on to them for when you attend. I suppose if you desperately want to cling to the argument of hunting or protecting your home, then keep a single shot rifle locked in your home (I really don't want to get into this right now). No need for handguns, no need for assault rifles, no need for high capacity magazines - the sole purpose of these items is to kill people and gun manufacturers get off on freaking people out enough to want(need) more and more guns. It's insane.

Couldn't guns be made to save lives? Or why do police have them? Only to kill?

Re: Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturer
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2019, 03:34:07 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6884
  • Tommy Points: 102
This seems foolish to me. I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people. And if the people of this country would like to make gun manufacturers more accountable (though that itself seems a bit silly, since even a common, single-shot gun could be used to kill someone, and we're not gonna be able to ban all guns), then they can work to pass legislation that applies from this point forward—punishing gunmakers retroactively for something they were legally allowed to do seems unfair.

What next, we sue car manufacturers for fatal car crashes, because they advertised sports cars with powerful engines to young people?

An interesting aside: If we're not allowed to go beyond a certain speed, why are car manufacturers allowed to make cars that far exceed those speeds?
the basis of the lawsuit is over how that particular gun was advertised.  There's a CNN article I saw on this earlier which I could see as a basis for the suit.  not too sure it'd succeed but I get where someone could make the case that the manufacturer violated CT law regarding the advertising. 

As for "I'm quite sure Remington doesn't make guns with the intention of seeing them used to kill people."  --> why else are guns made?  especially AR-15's.   Guns have one purpose -- Killing.  AR-15's have one purpose -- killing on a higher scale than a single-shot weapon.

Guns are a perfectly legitimate way of defending your home and family against intruders, and also for hunting game. Pinning a mass slaughter of innocent people on a gun manufacturer seems to detract from the killer's personal responsibility.

And I would argue that guns don't have just one purpose (killing); some people just enjoy taking their guns to a shooting range and never actually killing anything, not even animals.
you don't need an AR-15 to hunt game nor defend your home.  if you need one to hunt -> become a better shot using a rifle.  no person nor animal deserves to be riddled with bullets for 'sport' just because someone needs a military-grade weapon to kill something.  if you need that type of weapon to defend your home, you should seriously be asking yourself why you're living there and who's out to get you.

no one's saying the killer isn't responsible for the killing.  no one's saying he manufacturer is even at fault.  what's at issue is the way the weapon was advertised to the public -- accentuating it's ability to take down your opponents.

Like people didn't already know that a weapon like that would be well-suited for killing.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis