Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington

[NugginFutz]

From the Hartford Courant, March 14th, 2019.

"State Supreme Court overturns lower court ruling,
says Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington"

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-sandy-hook-gun-ruling-20190314-pwcw3qncazb7zkitbbkocmplka-story.html

The Connecticut State Supreme court has apparently overturned a lower court ruling, thereby clearing the way forward for families of the Sandy Hook victims to sue Remington.

While I am not certain that that particular shooting involved a Remington made AR-15, the lawsuit will almost certainly allow the litigants access to Remington's internal marketing documents.

From the article in the Courant:

The court ruled that the Sandy Hook families should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing what it knew was a weapon designed for military use to civilians such as Nancy and Adam Lanza.

This has a very chilling effect, if you ask me. This is just one more step along the path to removing the individual responsibility, and projecting the blame onto the tool. Can you imagine, for a minute, every time someone uses a weapon of any kind in a murder, the first thing the prosecuting attorney is going to look for is the name of the weapon's manufacturer? Imagine their glee when the name turns out to be one of the biggest firearm makers in the world? "$$$ Cha-Ching! $$$"

Remington really has to appeal this to the SCOTUS.

[37L1]

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

[Double Naught Spy]

Yeah, I don't see how this is right. I hope/expect the appeal to be successful.

[tashley680]

It should and probably will go to the Supreme Court and hopefully will set a precedent to kill this insanity once and for all!

[Keef]

America, land of freedom and litigation!

[sneaky one]

A piece of metal is not the problem

[LR1955]

Guys.

I can't wait for people to sue truck manufacturers for making trucks that are used to run down people in terrorist attacks.

Better yet, sue the rental company that rented the truck to the terrorist. Although Ford for example can not check the background of the person who buys their truck, a rental place can surely check the background of someone by using the same system as for firearms.

Some say that vehicles are not designed to be weapons. No problem. Booze on the other hand is designed to inebriate someone so they are next if this one passes.

LR55

[mtptwo]

It should and probably will go to the Supreme Court and hopefully will set a precedent to kill this insanity once and for all!

It was the Connecticut Supreme Court that allowed the suit to move forward. Supposedly, due to a law in Connection about advertising limits or some such.

[grayfox]

Even though a state law, it can still be brought to the Supreme Ct b/c of the federal supremacy clause, interstate commerce clause and free speech. Question is, whether Remington has the guts to pursue the appeal.

Remington corporate HQ is in North Carolina.

[biodsl]

This should be overturned by SCOTUS if appealed. Some good material here from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/324655/

[TomSawyerNW]

So, we can sue the manufacturer of a scalpel used by a doctor committing malpractice? Prbly not.

Still, this is nothing more than a 4-3 ruling by a gun-hating state intended to make guns illegal in this country.

Whether or not you like Trump's hair or his tweets, you have to appreciate his push to get basic law abiding judges in place.

[lazyengineer]

This is a show for purpose of harassment. Everyone involved is aware of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act", which is Federal law. The goal is to in general harass the industry. The general attitude is that a dollar spent harassing the gun industry, is a dollar invested; and it's good pro-bono publicity as well.

And they can't lose. Because when they inevitably lose the final appeal after many hearings and years from now; they will have their headlines on how awful the gun industry is.

[stanc]

Whether or not you like Trump's hair or his tweets, you have to appreciate his push to get basic law abiding judges in place.

That's small consolation for having a President who violated the 2nd Amendment, and advocates violating the 5th Amendment.

[LR1955]

That's small consolation for having a President who violated the 2nd Amendment, and advocates violating the 5th Amendment.

Stan:

Stated in a vacuum. The alternative would have been Hillary who would have ignored the entire Bill of Rights.

But we have gone over this a couple of times and at least once I banned you for not staying on the topic and going off in a rage about Trump.

Trump Derangement Syndrome was funny to me when it was coined. Now I realize that it is true!

In your situation, you hate Trump more than you want to be on the Grendel Forum.

Again, keep this on topic and the topic IS NOT your opinion on what parts of the Bill of Rights YOU think the President has violated. I can assure you that others disagree and this topic will degrade into another endless argument over nuances of the Constitution and American History.

Finally -- I am not inviting you to respond to this post with itemized instances where you think Trump has violated the Constitution or where I somehow misunderstood your post.

In fact, if you do so, I will throw you off the forum for a minimum of six months. I promise you this so simply stay on the topic and the topic is not Trump.

LR55

[LR1955]

And, just to make sure that Stan understands my entire post, with emphasis on my last sentence. I will give him a cool down time, like I had to do to buy a revolver because my CCP had expired. So I will close this thread for two or three days. Then I will open it again.