U.S. Supreme Court will not shield gun maker from Sandy Hook lawsuit

Yahoo ^ | 12 November 2019 | Andrew Chung

[Erik Latranyi]

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.

[Religion and Politics]

I guess we must place our faith in a jury then. Probably a better shot then the SCOTUS these days.

[LIConFem]

Sure glad we’ve got that 5-4 majority in the SCOTUS...

[faithhopecharity]

both unconstitutional and illegal

PDJT needs to put more honest people into the courts

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

This isn’t criminal. How many on the jury? And how must they vote for award?

Seems like there are only 6 jurors in a civil case in Connecticut, but verdicts must be unanimous.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/es201.pdf

[reintarnation]

I just googled "Remington Arms" and this come up:
I think they should sue google, too. Much more money there! /s

[rktman]

As in “directed fire”?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Premature. The Court did not issue an opinion stating that the federal law didn't apply. They just declined to take up the case at this point.

The Court almost never takes a case until there is a final, appealable order. And that hasn't happened because there hasn't yet been a trial. If Remington loses, they'll appeal. But even that is going to take awhile because that appeal will have to go all the way through Connecticut's own court system first.

[Flaming Conservative]

I have not been able to find any site which gives any details from the Supreme Court’s decision. I don’t know if they just say, “No”, out of hand, without saying who agreed with the decision, or if they produce a document, saying who agreed with that, and who didn’t. Anybody know?

[ealgeone]

They’re going to show video games, movies, etc where people are carrying most likely M-16s and attempt to say they’re AR-15s.

[mass55th]

Remington didn’t sell the weapon to the shooter. The mother bought the guns legally, and Lanza chose to shoot her with them. Can’t punish her, so let’s go after the manufacturer. If this is where they’re going, then they need to go after the companies who produced the raw materials that were used to make the weapon. And in the case of wooden stocks, to show how ridiculous this all is, they need to let the company who cut down the trees to make them, to be sued, and also the person who owned the land the trees grew on. This is friggin’ nuts.

[SkyDancer]

How many car manufacturers have been sued because their cars killed people?

[MrBambaLaMamba]

I’m going after Ford

[umgud]

Thanks

[Cboldt]

Federal Courts are hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. They lie about SCOTUS precedents, and SCOTUS lets then do so - that way SCOTUS gets to pretend it has clean hands and is respectful of the RKBA.

All three branches of the federal government are in cahoots in usurping power reserved to the people. Naturally so, this is the normal tension between “the people” and “their rulers.”

[BipolarBob]

True dat. The lawyers didn't go after defects or inherent dangerous product but a law protecting manufacturers from lawsuits with the exception being marketing. You're seeing this now with vaping lawsuits. That offering vapes in flavors is somehow enticing children (under 18) to vape. It's a long shot that Remington advertised their product to go kill a parent or school mates, I would think. But with a loaded liberal brainwashed jury, who knows?

[Chewbarkah]

Good point, but Adam Lanza didn’t buy the firearms he used. His mother did. Lanza killed her and stole her firearms.

The only strategy the plaintiff has is prejudice nd pity for the parents. This will come down to jury selection. All woman, all Democrat jury coming up.

[traderrob6]

Exactly.....I would have been flabbergasted had SCOTUS stepped in at this time.

[Torahman]

Not at all. The Target here is the 2nd amendment. The American people are going to be disarmed period. No guns = no ability to resist tyranny. When they are disarmed they will be slaughtered by the state. This includes all true patriots and anyone with a Biblical world view. Do not be naive to think that they would never do that. These are the people who suck the brains out of babies and then use their bodies as dancing puppets to amuse themselves. Watch the video. It’s later than you thunk.

[Sacajaweau]

I think the USSC won’t take it because it’s never been tried in a lower court.

[SoFloFreeper]

Counter sue. See who has deeper pockets.