SCOTUS Okays Lawsuit Against Sandy Hook Gunmaker

[NoleATL]

Woo hoo

https://www.joemygod.com/2019/11/scotus-okays-lawsuit-against-sandy-hook-gunmaker/
SCOTUS Okays Lawsuit Against Sandy Hook Gunmaker
November 12, 2019Guns, Terrorism


Reuters reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt a blow to the firearms industry, rejecting Remington Arms Co’s bid to escape a lawsuit by families of victims aiming to hold the gun maker liable for its marketing of the assault-style rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre that killed 20 children and six adults.

The justices turned away Remington’s appeal of a ruling by Connecticut’s top court to let the lawsuit proceed despite a federal law that broadly shields firearms manufacturers from liability when their weapons are used in crimes. The lawsuit will move forward at a time of high passions in the United States over the issue of gun control.

The Associated Press reports:

The court’s order allows the lawsuit filed in Connecticut state court by a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, school on Dec. 14, 2012 to go forward. The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public.

Gunman Adam Lanza used it to kill 20 first graders and six educators. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. Lanza was 20 years old.

Lanza earlier shot his mother to death at their Newtown home and killed himself as police arrived at the school. The rifle was legally owned by his mother. The National Rifle Association, 10 mainly Republican-led states and 22 Republicans in Congress were among those urging the court to jump into the case and end the lawsuit against Remington.

 

[Huey Grey]

Man, if this stands and gun manufacturers are liable for damages caused by their products, then we could see a huge crippling of the industry like we saw with the cigarette industry.

 

[SSG T]

If people actually want to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, the gun industry and NRA MUST be a part of that. If they aren't, an attempt won't even be made to do that. If it takes gun manufacturers being sued to make that happen, then it's a good thing.

And for the record, I've stated numerous times, the first steps in limiting gun violence needs to be things like full background checks, registration, mandatory training, licensing and the like, not bans. But the NRA and gun manufacturers are against even those things. Why? Because it hinders their ability to make money and limits their power. It has nothing to do with freedoms. Enact those things I listed, and no law abiding gun owner is kept from buying whatever gun they want.

 

[h-hawk]

SSG T had a more reasonable response but I lean left and still don't think this is a wise decision. Make people responsible for their own actions and stop blaming manufacturers who have no control over how their products are used. These assault style weapons are really no different than many semi automatic hunting rifles.

 

[SSG T]

SSG T had a more reasonable response but I lean left and still don't think this is a wise decision. Make people responsible for their own actions and stop blaming manufacturers who have no control over how their products are used. These assault style weapons are really no different than many semi automatic hunting rifles.

Oh, trust me, I'd much rather see the NRA get sued for a few hundred million $$$ based on them continually fighting against even modest gun control measures. The alternative is going after the gun manufacturers, who, hopefully, will force the NRA to quit those tactics.

 

[Huey Grey]

SSG T had a more reasonable response but I lean left and still don't think this is a wise decision. Make people responsible for their own actions and stop blaming manufacturers who have no control over how their products are used. These assault style weapons are really no different than many semi automatic hunting rifles.

I don't agree with this. Not only because these assault rifles and different from most hunting rifles, but because when used as intended, these products are deadly. If any industry produces a product that is deadly then that industry should be open to all kinds of lawsuits. Why should the gun lobby get a free pass?

 

[Finance85]

The way the article is written, and the OP's headline, are misleading. The SCOTUS didn't grant cert, meaning they aren't going to hear the appeal at this time. It doesn't mean they ruled in favor of anyone. The case can still be appealed, after the trial is held in Connecticut State Court.

The federal law granting immunity is pretty clear. The plaintiffs are trying to find a loophole related to marketing and play on emotions. All the anti-gun people who are applauding this and want more gun laws are essentially saying they only care about the law when it suits their political needs. Don't like a law? Change it.

This is more than about guns. People clamoring for holding gun manufacturers responsible aren't thinking of the consequences. The law says gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for unlawful use of their products. That should hold true for every product. Are we going to start suing truck manufacturers next time someone drives a truck into a crowd? Are we going to start suing knife makers next time someone is stabbed with a kabar or bowie knife?

 

[Huey Grey]

The way the article is written, and the OP's headline, are misleading. The SCOTUS didn't grant cert, meaning they aren't going to hear the appeal at this time. It doesn't mean they ruled in favor of anyone. The case can still be appealed, after the trial is held in Connecticut State Court.

The federal law granting immunity is pretty clear. The plaintiffs are trying to find a loophole related to marketing and play on emotions. All the anti-gun people who are applauding this and want more gun laws are essentially saying they only care about the law when it suits their political needs. Don't like a law? Change it.

This is more than about guns. People clamoring for holding gun manufacturers responsible aren't thinking of the consequences. The law says gun manufacturers can't be held responsible for unlawful use of their products. That should hold true for every product. Are we going to start suing truck manufacturers next time someone drives a truck into a crowd? Are we going to start suing knife makers next time someone is stabbed with a kabar or bowie knife?

The main purpose of these style of weapons is to kill people. Is there really any debate on this anymore? And if it's to kill people then why are they not open to lawsuits when people die?

 

[Finance85]

The main purpose of these style of weapons is to kill people. Is there really any debate on this anymore? And if it's to kill people then why are they not open to lawsuits when people die?

What was the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment? I'll tell you. It was to allow people to be armed so they could kill other people if necessary. Not murder.

By your logic, anyone who produces any instrument that causes death should be open to a lawsuit.

Guns are used lawfully thousands of times every day. The law doesn't shield manufacturers from selling guns unlawfully.

 

[Huey Grey]

What was the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment? I'll tell you. It was to allow people to be armed so they could kill other people if necessary. Not murder.

By your logic, anyone who produces any instrument that causes death should be open to a lawsuit.

Guns are used lawfully thousands of times every day. The law doesn't shield manufacturers from selling guns unlawfully.

Yes, I firmly believe that any product that is directly connected to combat, and therefore death, should be exposed to lawsuits when sold to the general public. Don't you?

 

[Huey Grey]

Car manufacturers, drug manufacturers, even toy manufacturers are all open to lawsuits when their products lead to death. Why should gun manufacturers be any different?

 

[sober_teacher]

Yes, I firmly believe that any product that is directly connected to combat, and therefore death, should be exposed to lawsuits when sold to the general public. Don't you?

Also, there is a very large difference between the gun industry and any other product. Guns are made with the express purpose of killing. No other industry can say the same.

 

[Finance85]

Yes, I firmly believe that any product that is directly connected to combat, and therefore death, should be exposed to lawsuits when sold to the general public. Don't you?

I've got news for you. An AR-15 rifle isn't being used in combat. It looks like a military weapon, but isn't one, and doesn't function like one. Of course that doesn't fit the narrative you want to push, so you and Robert (aka Beto) will continue to promote that lie.

 

[Finance85]

Also, there is a very large difference between the gun industry and any other product. Guns are made with the express purpose of killing. No other industry can say the same.

Good. I want to be able to have a tool that is lethal should I need to defend myself.

 

[Huey Grey]

If Mattel came out with a toy called, "Spear!" and that toy was being used to stab kids to death, Mattel would be sued in a heart beat. They could argue that Spear! was being used unlawfully, but the lawsuit would still happen.

What makes Remington different? Why is them having to stand behind the safety of their product any different from Mattel?

 

[Huey Grey]

I've got news for you. An AR-15 rifle isn't being used in combat. It looks like a military weapon, but isn't one, and doesn't function like one. Of course that doesn't fit the narrative you want to push, so you and Robert (aka Beto) will continue to promote that lie.

It is patterned after combat rifles. Hence the connection.

 

[Finance85]

If Mattel came out with a toy called, "Spear!" and that toy was being used to stab kids to death, Mattel would be sued in a heart beat. They could argue that Spear! was being used unlawfully, but the lawsuit would still happen.

What makes Remington different? Why is them having to stand behind the safety of their product any different from Mattel?

You are so obtuse.

 

[Monzon]

What was the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment? I'll tell you. It was to allow people to be armed so they could kill other people if necessary. Not murder.

By your logic, anyone who produces any instrument that causes death should be open to a lawsuit.

Guns are used lawfully thousands of times every day. The law doesn't shield manufacturers from selling guns unlawfully.

The main purpose of 2A from our founding fathers was not to have a standing army during peacetime, because that historically had led to Gov't tyranny. The founding fathers also did not desire to fund a standing army unless war was declared. Hence the "well-regulated militia" prefatory clause, which is conveniently omitted by most 2A enthusiasts.

I don't agree with this lawsuit. The company is making a legal product and everyone over the age of 7 knows what that product can do. Make production / sale / distribution illegal and then file the suit afterwards if the law is broken.

 

[ping72]

The main purpose of these style of weapons is to kill people. Is there really any debate on this anymore? And if it's to kill people then why are they not open to lawsuits when people die?

What was the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment? I'll tell you. It was to allow people to be armed so they could kill other people if necessary. Not murder.

By your logic, anyone who produces any instrument that causes death should be open to a lawsuit.

Guns are used lawfully thousands of times every day. The law doesn't shield manufacturers from selling guns unlawfully.

So I can start selling pipe bombs and chemical weapons on Craigslist?

 

[Finance85]

The main purpose of 2A from our founding fathers was not to have a standing army during peacetime, because that historically had led to Gov't tyranny. The founding fathers also did not desire to fund a standing army unless war was declared. Hence the "well-regulated militia" prefatory clause, which is conveniently omitted by most 2A enthusiasts.

I don't agree with this lawsuit. The company is making a legal product and everyone over the age of 7 knows what that product can do. Make production / sale / distribution illegal and then file the suit afterwards if the law is broken.

I've posted many times what the well-regulated militia meant at that time. Direct quotes by Madison and others who explained it.

The right way to accomplish your goal is to repeal the 2nd amendment. A new Amendment banning forearms would have to be passed because you aren't going to be able to confiscate weapons already privately owned.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

If Mattel came out with a toy called, "Spear!" and that toy was being used to stab kids to death, Mattel would be sued in a heart beat. They could argue that Spear! was being used unlawfully, but the lawsuit would still happen.

What makes Remington different? Why is them having to stand behind the safety of their product any different from Mattel?

Are there laws preventing children from buying, owning and using Mattell Toys like their is guns? How on earth can you overlook that MAJOR distinction.

If you wanted to be honest, you'd compare guns to Rat Poison. If a kid, finds it in the garage and then eats it or brings it to school and sprinkles it on the school pizza, why would the rat poison company be sued? Their product worked as intended.

 

[Monzon]

I've posted many times what the well-regulated militia meant at that time. Direct quotes by Madison and others who explained it.

The right way to accomplish your goal is to repeal the 2nd amendment. A new Amendment banning forearms would have to be passed because you aren't going to be able to confiscate weapons already privately owned.

My goal is not repealing 2A. You clearly have me confused with someone else.

And I've also repeatedly stated what the militia portion means, including citing the appropriate Federalists as well as how the language is cited in the Constitution regarding funding, contrasting with the Navy, etc. You disagreed without any actual citing as to why.

 

[Huey Grey]

Are there laws preventing children from buying, owning and using Mattell Toys like their is guns? How on earth can you overlook that MAJOR distinction.

If you wanted to be honest, you'd compare guns to Rat Poison. If a kid, finds it in the garage and then eats it or brings it to school and sprinkles it on the school pizza, why would the rat poison company be sued? Their product worked as intended.

If we're really being fair, instead of rat poison, it would be the drugs that states administer on death row inmates. Only those drugs are suddenly legal to buy at Walmart. And hordes of people were dying. Still no problem keeping them legal?

 

[Finance85]

My goal is not repealing 2A. You clearly have me confused with someone else.

And I've also repeatedly stated what the militia portion means, including citing the appropriate Federalists as well as how the language is cited in the Constitution regarding funding, contrasting with the Navy, etc. You disagreed without any actual citing as to why.

Well regulated meant well trained. Militia was every able bodied male.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I've got news for you. An AR-15 rifle isn't being used in combat. It looks like a military weapon, but isn't one, and doesn't function like one. Of course that doesn't fit the narrative you want to push, so you and Robert (aka Beto) will continue to promote that lie.

The only major difference between the AR-15 and the M16A4 is that the AR-15 doesn't have the 3 round burst mode and it uses a cartridge with slightly less powder.

 

[SSG T]

I've got news for you. An AR-15 rifle isn't being used in combat. It looks like a military weapon, but isn't one, and doesn't function like one. Of course that doesn't fit the narrative you want to push, so you and Robert (aka Beto) will continue to promote that lie.

An AR-15 is an M-16 without select fire. Fire an M-16 on semi and you're firing an AR-15.

FTR, the M-16 has been replaced with the M-4 series, which has the same receiver/barrel combo, just different accessories. So...it's the same as an AR-15 as well.

 

[seminole97]

So I can start selling pipe bombs and chemical weapons on Craigslist?

Wouldn’t advise it. BATF is likely to frown on your destructive devices.

But the government made a manual and it’s available online and at any Army surplus store. TM 30-210 will teach you how to make many bombs and provides nice lists of what you’ll need from the hardware store.

 

[Monzon]

Well regulated meant well trained. Militia was every able bodied male.

Federalist 29 disagrees. And if you feel that every able-bodied male must gather for militia training "once or twice a year"... well, good luck defending that hill.

 

[sober_teacher]

Good. I want to be able to have a tool that is lethal should I need to defend myself.

Fair enough, I don't argue with that. I'm not sure how I feel about this lawsuit. Obviously I feel (hope we all do) sympathy with the parents here. I've not seen examples of the ads that Remington used for this particular weapon so I'm not sure whether I agree with their argument yet.

I do have questions about how much we see advertisements regarding gun modifications and how some of those modifications get approved in the first place. Bump stocks for example. They're banned now, but I don't understand how it got approved in the first place. Standard guns aside, it feels like modifications are something we could require a higher standard for approval perhaps.

 

[SSG T]

The only major difference between the AR-15 and the M16A4 is that the AR-15 doesn't have the 3 round burst mode and it uses a cartridge with slightly less powder.

You can actually fire military ammo out of a civilian AR. Which bullet you use depends on barrel twist. They had different rounds for the different models of M16/M4 in the military because they changed barrels.

 

[Finance85]

The only major difference between the AR-15 and the M16A4 is that the AR-15 doesn't have the 3 round burst mode and it uses a cartridge with slightly less powder.

LOL. The main difference is that an AR-15 won't fire automatic. Since 1986, the lower receiver can no longer accept a sear that would turn a semi-auto into a fully auto without precision machining.

 

[Finance85]

An AR-15 is an M-16 without select fire. Fire an M-16 on semi and you're firing an AR-15.

FTR, the M-16 has been replaced with the M-4 series, which has the same receiver/barrel combo, just different accessories. So...it's the same as an AR-15 as well.

LOL. You are saying an M-16, or M-4, can fire like an AR-15, which is true. It's not true an AR-15 can fire like an M-16 or M-4 fully automatic. They aren't the same. Try again.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Man, if this stands and gun manufacturers are liable for damages caused by their products, then we could see a huge crippling of the industry like we saw with the cigarette industry.

One can only hope.

If people actually want to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, the gun industry and NRA MUST be a part of that. If they aren't, an attempt won't even be made to do that. If it takes gun manufacturers being sued to make that happen, then it's a good thing.

And for the record, I've stated numerous times, the first steps in limiting gun violence needs to be things like full background checks, registration, mandatory training, licensing and the like, not bans. But the NRA and gun manufacturers are against even those things. Why? Because it hinders their ability to make money and limits their power. It has nothing to do with freedoms. Enact those things I listed, and no law abiding gun owner is kept from buying whatever gun they want.

 

[SSG T]

LOL. You are saying an M-16, or M-4, can fire like an AR-15, which is true. It's not true an AR-15 can fire like an M-16 or M-4 fully automatic. They aren't the same. Try again.

If you fire an M-16 on semi, which is how every Soldier in the Army is trained to fire, you are firing exactly as an AR-15 fires. You aim through the same sights, squeeze the same trigger, which releases the same firing pin in the same bolt which is in the same bolt carrier.

Want to turn an AR-15 into an M-16, you replace the trigger/sear group, which is about a $40 set. That's it, replace the trigger group and you have an M-16. They are exactly the same weapon.

 

[Finance85]

If you fire an M-16 on semi, which is how every Soldier in the Army is trained to fire, you are firing exactly as an AR-15 fires. You aim through the same sights, squeeze the same trigger, which releases the same firing pin in the same bolt which is in the same bolt carrier.

Want to turn an AR-15 into an M-16, you replace the trigger/sear group, which is about a $40 set. That's it, replace the trigger group and you have an M-16. They are exactly the same weapon.

Thanks for making my point. You agreed that you can not fire an AR-15 in automatic mode.

Conversion kits only work on pre-1986 guns without machining.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

LOL. The main difference is that an AR-15 won't fire automatic. Since 1986, the lower receiver can no longer accept a sear that would turn a semi-auto into a fully auto without precision machining.

If you fire an M-16 on semi, which is how every Soldier in the Army is trained to fire, you are firing exactly as an AR-15 fires. You aim through the same sights, squeeze the same trigger, which releases the same firing pin in the same bolt which is in the same bolt carrier.

Want to turn an AR-15 into an M-16, you replace the trigger/sear group, which is about a $40 set. That's it, replace the trigger group and you have an M-16. They are exactly the same weapon.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I am under the impression that a lot of soldiers are issued with M-16's that no longer have the automatic fire option available. It's just the single shot and the 3 round burst.

While I'm not wanting them to legalize auto-fire for some very obvious reasons, at the same time the whole "It doesn't fire automatic" is extremely overrated. Only in very specific situations in combat do soldiers themselves use automatic fire.

The remaining differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 are very small. A slightly smaller powder load in the cartridge, rifling that isn't quite as tight as the military version.

The NRA gun nuts like to pretend like these differences are extremely meaningful. All it means is that the AR-15's effective range is 500 yards and the M-16's effective range is 550 yards.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Thanks for making my point. You agreed that you can not fire an AR-15 in automatic mode.

Conversion kits only work on pre-1986 guns without machining.

And many M-16's don't fire on automatic fire. So it's still exactly like M-16's issued to Army soldiers.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

If we're really being fair, instead of rat poison, it would be the drugs that states administer on death row inmates. Only those drugs are suddenly legal to buy at Walmart. And hordes of people were dying. Still no problem keeping them legal?

No. Hunting guns are meant to kill animals and so is rat poison. If they are used for purposes other than what they are meant for, then they can end up killing people. It's the exact perfect analogy.

 

[ihhawk]

Its odd that no one is pointing out that they are saying the gun manufacturers are advertising in video games and that is somehow linked to the mass shootings.

This will open Pandora's box for corporate lawsuits. If a person kills another while texting and driving...the family should sue the Phone manufacturer, the cell provider, the car manufacturer....endless

 

[B1GDeal]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I am under the impression that a lot of soldiers are issued with M-16's that no longer have the automatic fire option available. It's just the single shot and the 3 round burst.

While I'm not wanting them to legalize auto-fire for some very obvious reasons, at the same time the whole "It doesn't fire automatic" is extremely overrated. Only in very specific situations in combat do soldiers themselves use automatic fire.

The remaining differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 are very small. A slightly smaller powder load in the cartridge, rifling that isn't quite as tight as the military version.

The NRA gun nuts like to pretend like these differences are extremely meaningful. All it means is that the AR-15's effective range is 500 yards and the M-16's effective range is 550 yards.

It's been 20+ years since I used the M16, but then it was single shot or 3 round burst. They removed automatic at some point after Vietnam. I was told this was removed because in a fire fight people would often panic and waste all of their ammo and/or would over heat and cause it to jam rendering the soldier worthless in the fight.