"Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuits go forward"

[archives]

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!

Again, that is not true, currently the 9th Circuit is waiting on the New York case before going anywhere, and the original decision based on five southern states after the Civil War is too weak even for Trump's Court to uphold, don't hold your breath on that one

 

[Abatis]

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 really have no clue how the US legal system functions do you?

The CT supreme court's decision to reinvigorate the CUTPA claim is not "precedent"; neither is today's SCOTUS denial of cert, "precedent". There has been no precedential decision made by any court, on any of the merits of the remaining claim based on the CUTPA.

All proceedings to date have only been arguments and decisions about what aspects of the suit are dismissed and which one can go forward . . .

So far, the ONLY "precedent", at least in Connecticut, is that the PLCAA bars families of the Sandy Hook massacre and other mass shootings from suing gun shops and manufacturers that lawfully make or sell assault weapons for lawfully making or selling assault weapons. Those claims / arguments were dismissed by the CT court as being prohibited by the PCLAA. Get that through your thick leftist skull.

Perhaps if and when the remaining narrow Connecticut marketing case is actually heard and the Connecticut court renders a binding decision on the CUTPA based negligent marketing claim, you can make a different statement about "precedent" that pertains to this case.

That's as far as "precedent" goes, there is no detrimental effect on the PCLAA because the PCLAA does not prohibit suits based on marketing.

.

 

[Abatis]

currently the 9th Circuit is waiting on the New York case before going anywhere,

I know, I just threw Young out there because it is a well written and reasoned decision and doesn't leave much wiggle room for reversal. There isn't much doubt about how the en banc 9th will go with it; if they reverse it will certainly be appealed and given the conflicts in the circuits on carriage of arms, there's a good chance SCOTUS would grant certiorari.

and the original decision based on five southern states after the Civil War is too weak even for Trump's Court to uphold, don't hold your breath on that one

What case is that?

 

[Rusty Bell 65]

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?

My guns cause no murders. I won't have them insured. Period.

 

[CFM]

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

What you hate, and as I've said too fucking scared to try and personally take, isn't a military style weapon or a weapon of war. What that means is you have to make up shit in order to show you're nothing more than a pussy that is scared of inanimate objects.

I bet you got your ass whipped a lot as a kid.

 

[CFM]

That's not what I consider sane gun laws.

It sounds like common sense gun legislation to me.

You hate guns. The only law you want is one banning all of them.

I wish you pussies would simply say that or grow a set and personally start trying to take the ones you say people shouldn't own. You'd still be idiots for believing it or trying it but you'd be honest idiots.

 

[moon]

Guns are a waste of money, resources and life. You'd be better off with a big club.

Oh..wait...............you've got the NRA ! Haw, haw........................haw.

 

[Rusty Bell 65]

That's what you Trumperoos have been preaching for years.

Please, by all means, give us an example. It should be easy since we've been "preaching for years."

 

[Into the Night]

Refute it, cunt.

I’ll wait.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

No such thing as Inversion fallacy

Redefinition fallacy (logic<->void).

 

[Into the Night]

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,“

Repetition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, those speed bumps down streets really piss me off just because some assholes didn’t obey the speed limits.

Fair enough. Why don't you remove those speed bumps and find some other way to control the speeders?

 

[Into the Night]

Write them and ask, moron. I’m sure they’ll respond.

I don't need to write them. Their decision is published. There is nothing in their decision they published about overturning 109-92 or the reasoning behind it.

 

[Into the Night]

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,“

RDCF

 

[Into the Night]

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!

Yes...State by State, it is happening. Glad to see it!

 

[Into the Night]

That's not what I consider sane gun laws.

Too bad. Move to a country that doesn't have the 2nd amendment, and that tries to take all the guns away from their citizens. Perhaps Venezuela?

The right to self defense is inherent, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Define 'military style weapon'.
Please show the text of the decision to overturn the federal law protecting gun manufacturers.
Please show the authority the Connecticut Supreme Court has over Sections 15 and 25 of the constitution of the State of Connecticut, and where it has authority over the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and where it has authority to change the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 15 of the Connecticut constitution.

You cannot set legal precedent by breaking the law.

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil;

Repetition fallacy.

You ironic twat. Haw, haw.............................haw.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, that is not true, currently the 9th Circuit is waiting on the New York case before going anywhere, and the original decision based on five southern states after the Civil War is too weak even for Trump's Court to uphold, don't hold your breath on that one

Contextomy fallacy. None of what Abatis is talking about has anything to do with the War of Secession (what most people call the 'Civil War', even though it wasn't a civil war).

 

[Into the Night]

Guns are a waste of money, resources and life. You'd be better off with a big club.

Oh..wait...............you've got the NRA ! Haw, haw........................haw.

A club in a gun fight. Yeah...that's going to go well, moron.