"Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuits go forward"

RB 60 said:
It will be appealed and struck down. Auto manufacturers can't be sued because drunk drivers kill people.
There is no way liability ins. will become mandatory for gun owners, not in my lifetime. I'd refuse to carry it if it were.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it won't become mandatory? If it's not the guns causing all these mass murderers, then everyone with a gun should be happy to insure it. After all, you all are honest law-abiding responsible gun-owners, right?
 
Abatis said:
The PlCCA still stands, it still protects gun companies.
The CT court ruled that the PLCCA does not protect gun companies from suits arguing their products were "wrongfully marketed".
The PLCCA never addressed such suits or attacks.
The PLCCA is unharmed, no decision arising from what's left of this lawsuit can impact the PLCCA.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Stop faking that you do.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, the SCOTUS refusal to take the case, to reject Remington's appeal, means the case returns to Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling that the families' can sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians, as I said, sets precedent and pulls the rug out from beneath one of the gun manufactures' major defenses
 
Bigdog said:
Will we be able to sue Alcohol manufacturers, too?
Click to expand...

Fast food resturants for obesity (saying how good it is)

Car manufacturers for auto deaths (showing cars going really fast)

etc. (for promoting their product and then having some idiot use it irresponsibly)
 
As much as I hate to, here's an article from Slate. Overall it is well written, it is a good explanation of the legal aspects of this case and keeps the editorializing to a minimum.

It dates back to March when the CT state supreme court revived this one narrow aspect of the case and allowed it to advance (which was what the SCOTUS just said they would not hear any appeal on).

I'm not posting this for the stupid anti-gunner's here, I'm posting it for the pro-gunners so you can stop with the circle jerk with archives and the others . . . This explains what the legal realities are, how this case does not impact the PLCCA at all, and that archives is completely full of shit.


"Because of the PLCAA, families of the Sandy Hook massacre and other mass shootings cannot sue gun shops and manufacturers for negligently making or selling assault weapons. But the Sandy Hook families pursued a different legal theory: They argued that Remington’s advertisements for the AR-15–style weapon ran afoul of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ] by promoting unethical and illegal use of the weapon. Their lawsuit cited multiple ads that depicted the gun not as a tool of home defense, hunting, or sport, but as a weapon of war meant to kill a large number of people in a small amount of time. Remington advertised the gun as “the ultimate combat weapons system” used by the armed forces in theaters of war. It depicted a close-up of the gun with the slogan “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” It touted the weapon as an “uncompromising choice” with “military proven performance.” As the Connecticut Supreme Court explained, the thrust of Remington’s ads was that the gun would “enable a shooter to inflict unparalleled carnage.”

The lawsuit cited multiple ads that depicted the gun not as a tool of home defense, hunting, or sport, but as a weapon of war.

The plaintiffs relied on CUTPA in an effort to work around the PLCAA, because the federal statute includes an important exception. While it bars most negligence suits, the PLCAA permits claims alleging that a gun manufacturer or seller “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” If CUTPA is “applicable” to the sale of firearms, then, the plaintiffs’ wrongful advertising suit is not prohibited by the PLCAA."​


As I said upthread, this is a 1st Amendment case, not a 2nd Amendment case . . .
 
archives said:
No, alcohol's primary purpose isn't to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time
Click to expand...

Neither is the it the guns primary purpose to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time; because it's purpose is to fire the ammunition and it's the person's decision where he intends that ammunition to end up.
 
archives said:
What are you talking about, the SCOTUS refusal to take the case, to reject Remington's appeal, means the case returns to Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling that the families' can sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians, as I said, sets precedent and pulls the rug out from beneath one of the gun manufactures' major defenses
Click to expand...

You get a 4 from the commie bastard East German judge for trying to save face, using "marketing" for the first time in this thread.

You're still wrong but you get a few points for composing such a disingenuous effort in such short time.
 
Bigdog said:
Alcohol's primary purpose is to cause domestic violence and accidents ... often resulting in the deaths of innocents and doing great damage to children. The manufacturers need to be held responsible for all the families alcohol has destroyed.
Click to expand...

Maybe lonely liberal males can sue the alcohol makers; seeing as their adds show men and women drinking together and they could sue under the premise that women won't talk to them when the are drinking, aside from the fact that women won't talk to them at other times either.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
evince said:
they are suing the gun producers for the adds they run which advertise them as killing machines


how can they deny advertising to the Killer market


read the case you fucking idiot

you racists are the dumbest fucks in the world
Click to expand...

What adds??

Link up to them.

Or are you just parroting what you've heard said??
 
RB 60 said:
I can hardly believe they'd overrule a previous ruling, especially one this vital to our 2nd. Amendment.
Not just that, that opens a Pandora's box for just about every idiot who misuses a product to sue, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

The ruling is addressing the plaintiffs complaint that Remington's adds, regarding the AR-15, were in violation of part of law that disallowed gun manufacturers from being sued.

So the plaintiffs are going to have to show how they were in violation, via specific adds and specific wording, and then show how that led to the victims being murdered.
 
Trumpet said:
Hopefully, we'll get some sane gun laws, finally.
Click to expand...

It's happening, slowly but surely.

Oklahoma just became the 17th "constitutional carry" state, no permit required for law-abiding citizens to carry a gun, open or concealed!

Soon SCOTUS will take-up a good carry case, (Young v Hawaii would be a good one) and sane gun laws, that forbid states and local governments from banning the carry of guns for self defense, will be imposed across the USA, NO EXCEPTIONS!
 
Abatis said:
As much as I hate to, here's an article from Slate. Overall it is well written, it is a good explanation of the legal aspects of this case and keeps the editorializing to a minimum.

It dates back to March when the CT state supreme court revived this one narrow aspect of the case and allowed it to advance (which was what the SCOTUS just said they would not hear any appeal on).

I'm not posting this for the stupid anti-gunner's here, I'm posting it for the pro-gunners so you can stop with the circle jerk with archives and the others . . . This explains what the legal realities are, how this case does not impact the PLCCA at all, and that archives is completely full of shit.


"Because of the PLCAA, families of the Sandy Hook massacre and other mass shootings cannot sue gun shops and manufacturers for negligently making or selling assault weapons. But the Sandy Hook families pursued a different legal theory: They argued that Remington’s advertisements for the AR-15–style weapon ran afoul of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ] by promoting unethical and illegal use of the weapon. Their lawsuit cited multiple ads that depicted the gun not as a tool of home defense, hunting, or sport, but as a weapon of war meant to kill a large number of people in a small amount of time. Remington advertised the gun as “the ultimate combat weapons system” used by the armed forces in theaters of war. It depicted a close-up of the gun with the slogan “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” It touted the weapon as an “uncompromising choice” with “military proven performance.” As the Connecticut Supreme Court explained, the thrust of Remington’s ads was that the gun would “enable a shooter to inflict unparalleled carnage.”

The lawsuit cited multiple ads that depicted the gun not as a tool of home defense, hunting, or sport, but as a weapon of war.

The plaintiffs relied on CUTPA in an effort to work around the PLCAA, because the federal statute includes an important exception. While it bars most negligence suits, the PLCAA permits claims alleging that a gun manufacturer or seller “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” If CUTPA is “applicable” to the sale of firearms, then, the plaintiffs’ wrongful advertising suit is not prohibited by the PLCAA."​


As I said upthread, this is a 1st Amendment case, not a 2nd Amendment case . . .
Click to expand...

Aren't they now going to have to prove that the words "Forces of opposition" meant school children??

:facepalm:
 
Abatis said:
It's happening, slowly but surely.

Oklahoma just became the 17th "constitutional carry" state, no permit required for law-abiding citizens to carry a gun, open or concealed!

Soon SCOTUS will take-up a good carry case, (Young v Hawaii would be a good one) and sane gun laws, that forbid states and local governments from banning the carry of guns for self defense, will be imposed across the USA, NO EXCEPTIONS!
Click to expand...

That's not what I consider sane gun laws.
 
Abatis said:
You get a 4 from the commie bastard East German judge for trying to save face, using "marketing" for the first time in this thread.

You're still wrong but you get a few points for composing such a disingenuous effort in such short time.
Click to expand...

In other words you got nothing to refute what I posted, that the SCOTUS refusal to take the case, to reject Remington's appeal, means the case returns to Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling that the families' can sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians, as I said, sets precedent and pulls the rug out from beneath one of the gun manufactures' major defenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top