Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Remington
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.
Comments
-
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
-
Not going anywhere.
-
It presents a Federal question. It will go up.GrundleStiltzkin said: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. -
What about the bank that made loans to Remmington?
-
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.
-
Named & shamed long ago.RaceBannon said:What about the bank that made loans to Remmington?
-
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.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. -
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.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.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit! -
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.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.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy. -
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.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.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
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. -
WhoaSledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.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.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
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.Sledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.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.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
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. -
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.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
Sledog wants his person opinions to cover the nation's freedoms.Sledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.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.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
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. -
Not the same thing. But looks like you’d be for it. That figures...2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
You can't imagine any advertising that would expose them to such a lawsuit? I think you can.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
-
Where did I say that? I'm just pointing at idiotic strawman arguments.greenblood said:
So you’d be for it. That figures...2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
It is still illegal unfortunately2001400ex said:
Sledog wants his person opinions to cover the nation's freedoms.Sledog said:
Yes I do.HHusky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.Sledog said:
I see Remington advertising. So yes I have seen what would be considered "evidence".HHusky said:
Please just live with the fact that Congress caved and it will be reversed. You have no idea what evidence was presented.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.
If someone steals your Prius and runs someone over your gonna be in deep shit!
It's OK. This isn't going to stand. Just try to be happy.
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. -
Don't forget about all the companies that supplied Remington with materials and other services...and the banks that made loans to them as well.RaceBannon said:What about the bank that made loans to Remmington?
-
Were they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
Why are you asking me that question?2001400ex said:
We're they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
How about bullet and metal manufactures?
-
Why do you not understand the question?RaceBannon said:
Why are you asking me that question?2001400ex said:
We're they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
Did I say I didn't understand the question? You need to read for comprehension2001400ex said:
Why do you not understand the question?RaceBannon said:
Why are you asking me that question?2001400ex said:
We're they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
I know you gals love hypotheticals, but the lawsuit is based on marketing decisions.greenblood said:How about bullet and metal manufactures?
-
So you want to avoid the question.RaceBannon said:
Did I say I didn't understand the question? You need to read for comprehension2001400ex said:
Why do you not understand the question?RaceBannon said:
Why are you asking me that question?2001400ex said:
We're they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now? -
I going to wait to comment until @SandyHooker weighs in.
-
What question?2001400ex said:
So you want to avoid the question.RaceBannon said:
Did I say I didn't understand the question? You need to read for comprehension2001400ex said:
Why do you not understand the question?RaceBannon said:
Why are you asking me that question?2001400ex said:
We're they complicit in criminal activity?RaceBannon said:
Can we sue their banks?2001400ex said:
Imagine if we were able to sue tobacco companies for people dying from cigarettes.greenblood said:Imagine if we were able to sue Coors and Ford if some drunk driver in an Explorer killed somebody...
Are we done with strawman now?
