Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Remington

GrundleStiltzkin

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wjmybb/sandy-hook-parents-can-now-sue-gunmaker-of-rifle-used-in-school-shooting

The gun manufacturer that made the AR-15-style rifle used to kill 20 young children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 can be held liable for their deaths, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The 4-3 decision, which reversed a lower court’s ruling, gives the green light for a lawsuit brought on behalf of the parents and relatives of the Newtown victims to proceed. The lower court held that gunmakers were shielded by a 2005 law that protected them from liability when their products were used to commit crimes.

Plaintiffs say that Remington, the gun company, manufactured a weapon that’s too dangerous for civilian use, and then glorified it through aggressive marketing, which made it attractive to the 20-year-old Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza.

I'm not a pretend lawyer and do not know whether there's a further appeal in CT state court system, or if it can go federal.

Either way, I'm concerned.

RaceBannon

It doesn't mean they win if they sue but I see the cause for concern

Its a chilling effect on our 2nd Amendment rights

Although we have multiple lawsuits against news outlets now based on the Covington Kids which could chill our First Amendment rights

The Constitution under assault! #6 will SHOCK you

Sledog

Not going anywhere.

HHusky

GrundleStiltzkin said:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wjmybb/sandy-hook-parents-can-now-sue-gunmaker-of-rifle-used-in-school-shooting

The gun manufacturer that made the AR-15-style rifle used to kill 20 young children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 can be held liable for their deaths, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The 4-3 decision, which reversed a lower court’s ruling, gives the green light for a lawsuit brought on behalf of the parents and relatives of the Newtown victims to proceed. The lower court held that gunmakers were shielded by a 2005 law that protected them from liability when their products were used to commit crimes.

Plaintiffs say that Remington, the gun company, manufactured a weapon that’s too dangerous for civilian use, and then glorified it through aggressive marketing, which made it attractive to the 20-year-old Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza.

I'm not a pretend lawyer and do not know whether there's a further appeal in CT state court system, or if it can go federal.

Either way, I'm concerned.

It presents a Federal question. It will go up.

RaceBannon

What about the bank that made loans to Remmington?

Sledog

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

GrundleStiltzkin

RaceBannon said:

What about the bank that made loans to Remmington?

Named & shamed long ago.

HHusky

Sledog said:

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.

Sledog

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.

I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!

HHusky

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.

I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!

You don't know what you're talking about.

It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.

Sledog

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.

I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!

You don't know what you're talking about.

It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.

Yes I do.

Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.

Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.

I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going.

RaceBannon

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.

I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!

You don't know what you're talking about.

It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.

Yes I do.

Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.

Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.

I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going.

Whoa

HHusky

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.

I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!

You don't know what you're talking about.

It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.

Yes I do.

Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.

Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.

I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going.

You don't know the circumstances of this case. You've just got a knee jerk reaction that Congress already enshrined in statute. Connecticut thumbed its nose at the Feds . . . 4-3. It won't survive the Federal system.

greenblood

Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

2001400ex

greenblood said:

Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

Are we done with strawman now?

2001400ex

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.

I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!

You don't know what you're talking about.

It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.

Yes I do.

Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.

Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.

I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going.

Sledog wants his person opinions to cover the nation's freedoms.

greenblood

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

Are we done with strawman now?

Not the same thing. But looks like you’d be for it. That figures...

HHusky

greenblood said:

Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

You can't imagine any advertising that would expose them to such a lawsuit? I think you can.

2001400ex

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

Are we done with strawman now?

So you’d be for it. That figures...

Where did I say that? I'm just pointing at idiotic strawman arguments.

RaceBannon

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...

Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.

Are we done with strawman now?

Can we sue their banks?

RaceBannon

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

The Court keeps referencing Remington violated the Consumer Protection Statute by somehow advertising "illegal or criminal activity ". Of course Remington doesn't do that. How could Remington's advertising have made Lanza murder his mother and steal her weapons?

This is what happens when courts try to legislate their political opinions via the bench.

Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.

I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".

If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!

You don't know what you're talking about.

It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.

Yes I do.

Anyone that thinks a person or entity should be responsible for the criminal actions of another under the circumstances of this case isn't thinking clearly.

Of course Lanza;s mom thinking shooting is good thing for her son, whom she knew to nutty, is crazy. She doesn't have any money so they go after Remington. That and the whole gun control agenda of wanting to bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control.

I wish they'd get the lawsuits on weed sellers going.

Sledog wants his person opinions to cover the nation's freedoms.

It is still illegal unfortunately