Notices
Like Tree57Likes

Remington can be sued

Old 03-15-2019, 05:45 PM
  #61  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 234
Default

Originally Posted by Cracker View Post
^^^^^Hmmm..All your friends just thought you were into sausage, they said you were a good actor.
saltyreefer is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 05:46 PM
  #62  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: SE Massachusetts
Posts: 24
Default

I thought the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected manufacturers from being held liable when crimes are committed with their products.
Whale638 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 05:50 PM
  #63  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Venice, FL
Posts: 609
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
However a car is not sold to kill someone, a gun is sold for the sole purchase of killing something....... just saying
or target shooting
Windwood is online now  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:03 PM
  #64  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CT
Posts: 273
Default

Originally Posted by Whale638 View Post
I thought the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected manufacturers from being held liable when crimes are committed with their products.
Interesting that you brought this up. This is from a very liberal newspaper in New London, CT.

https://www.theday.com/editorials/20...cial-overreach

By The Day Editorial Board Day staff writer

The 4-3 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision and allow a lawsuit against Remington Arms to proceed is a case of judicial overreach. Remington manufactured the weapon used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005, gives gun manufacturers immunity from liability claims when the weapons they produce are used in crimes. It is a terrible law, providing special treatment not provided to any other industry. But it is the law. The remedy — repeal — should come through the political process, not by the court giving a wink and a nod to a dubious legal argument that allows a lawsuit to proceed in contradiction of the law.

The work around to the federal law was the claim that the immunity protection does not extend to violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the common law principal of “negligent entrustment.
”In other words, the court is giving the plaintiffs the chance to convince a jury to impose damages against Remington for recklessly and unethically marketing the AR-15 semiautomatic military-style weapon in violation of the unfair trade act. The plaintiffs will also try to show that by its actions the gun manufacturer entrusted a dangerous article to someone who was reckless or too inexperienced to use it safely.

That’s quite a legal stretch to get around the clearly stated immunity in the federal law. It suggests a court majority that had a policy in mind — exposing the gun manufacturer to scrutiny and liability for its role in this terrible crime — then using the legal contrivance handed to it by the plaintiffs to adapt its decision accordingly.

And then there is this. The gun was not sold to Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook killings. It was sold to his mother. Lanza stole it.Call us old fashioned, but we would like courts to uphold the law unless a constitutional violation is clear, not make law or find ways to get around it. Just as we think Congress should control the power of the purse and not allow a president to use a phony national emergency to spend money how he wants.

The 2012 slaughter of 26 children and educators was horrible. In this editorial space we advocated for and applauded the outlawing of weapons such as the AR-15 in Connecticut. We want them outlawed nationally.But if the branches of government do not stay in their constitutional lanes, the ingenious system of checks and balances breaks down. And that is not good for our state or country.
mac7769 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 06:04 PM
  #65  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CT
Posts: 273
Default

Originally Posted by Diverboy View Post
Anyone can be sued for anything by anyone and lawyers know this and more often than not, it is a shakedown. Case may not have merit, but they will settle out of court.
....
Remington will never settle this out of court. Never.
wdkerek likes this.
mac7769 is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:02 PM
  #66  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: west tn
Posts: 703
Default

This isn't about the 2nd Amendment. It's not about liability. It's not about any partial (be it imagined or actual) liability. It isn't even about the "claim" as stated by those seeking this end route in CT as a violation of some BS, farcical law... this is ENTIRELY about suing the gun makers into bankruptcy! Plain and simple.

The left has given up on elimination of the 2nd Amendment, at least with respect to using the political process and erasing the legislation from the books. Even attempting such "state by state" has proven faulty among the anti-gunners. But for many years the far left and their best buds/fellow members in the Trial Lawyers Assc. have known that the only chance they have to rid "free America" of firearms is to do so by putting the arms mfgrs out of business via simply overwhelming them with lawsuits, however frivolous and ridiculous. They don't have to win or even make it to trial to win. They simply have to FLOOD every arm mfgr with enough lawsuit that either the owners will fold up shop and "holler uncle" or they will be put out of business as a result of no longer be able to attain anykind of insurance!

"Death by 1000 pricks" (or more appropriately, how many members of the ABA and DNC!)
HatchieLuvr is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:14 PM
  #67  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: West Carolina
Posts: 21,925
Default

Originally Posted by HatchieLuvr View Post
pricks
Ya hit the nail on the head.
Buddy Davis 33 likes this.
Shag is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 04:57 AM
  #68  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SWFL
Posts: 1,460
Default

Originally Posted by Cracker View Post
^^^^^Hmmm..All your friends just thought you were into sausage, they said you were a good actor.
it was great advertisement that got me into character!
Cracker likes this.
Cwellman is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 05:04 AM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 267
Default

Originally Posted by jjc0009 View Post
I know someone who was killed when a driver distracted by their phone hit them. Can the family sue Apple and ATT?
Idk. I bet apple and at&t played as much into this tragic crime as did Remington advertisement.
Finsinchessy is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:15 AM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Algonac michigan
Posts: 5,526
Default

I'm guessing that the state is hoping that Remington will simply try to settle.Pretty obvious that the company did nothing wrong and was totally within the law.The US Supreme court will probably get involved at some point.
muskamoot is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:41 AM
  #71  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Out west
Posts: 3,297
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
However a car is not sold to kill someone, a gun is sold for the sole purchase of killing something....... just saying
99.99999999999999999% of all rounds fired from all guns in the USA are fired at something other than human beings and animals.

dssmith is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:46 AM
  #72  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Jacksonville, FL.
Posts: 10,717
Default

Originally Posted by TorFed View Post
Nobody who is pissed off by the fact this is happening will read the reason for the case moving forward.

At first I was flabbergasted that this was allowed to move forward, but then read the reasoning. In my opinion, the advertising angle, and what the lawsuit is about is solid, and this will wind up being a benchmark case for firearms advertising in the future.

This isn't a move to ban guns or a 'guns bad' lawsuit. It is a lawsuit to bring more responsibility to the marketing of a deadly item. I'm behind that.

Respectfully, I'm not. So marketing made this deranged kid shoot people. This will never be about anything more than moving towards banning weapons or at the very least, AR15 style weapons. We can try to sugar coat it with reason but I believe you know in your heart what this is about. If they can't ban weapons, they will tax the crap out of ammo, or incessantly engage legal fights until the gun side runs out of money or sue the manufacturers into bankruptcy. It IS about banning weapons, period.
JAGSARE1 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:48 AM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Near Columbia SC
Posts: 963
Default

Originally Posted by FASTFJR View Post
However a car is not sold to kill someone, a gun is sold for the sole purchase of killing something....... just saying
so the millions of guns in circulation that the owners are not killing people with are being used wrong? And those millions of gun owners are not using their guns as designed if they aren't killing someone?
fmb3 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:56 AM
  #74  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Middle Peninsula, VA
Posts: 1,342
Default

Originally Posted by Cracker View Post
BullSH!t !!!!!!! There are cautionary labels and statements and warnings in the gun case
Second, this IS ALL ABOUT THE EVIL GUN. I have never scene an ad that is anything but protection or your rights by the 2nd Amendment.. There is no ad suggesting you kill people..
Lawyer manipulation to go after deep pockets (not bashing all lawyers just saying going after a manufacturer for someone wrongly using their product is no bueno)

The cigarette reasoning is wrong too, everybody knows cigarettes help kill you. You have to be an adult to purchase them, sorry that is wrong too..
I was gonna post the same. Thanks for saving me the typing. I don't give a crap what they advertise. People need to take, get this, personal responsibility.
Cracker likes this.
1976K204x4 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:58 AM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Middle Peninsula, VA
Posts: 1,342
Default

Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
I believe this is the ad they took issue with.


I believe the argument is that this ad is targeted towards an audience that could reasonably be expected to include people with mental issues such as the Sandy Hook shooter. Much like the Joe Camel ads were targeted at teenagers.

I believe that is bulshit.

I may or may not have one of these and have no idea what a man card is.
1976K204x4 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 12:29 PM
  #76  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 3,433
Default

I think this is all horseshit from the anti gunners, but wouldn't things like video games be next on the list?

If Remington's marketing is to blame, how are XBox's and Playstations not?

Kids see video game marketing way before gun marketing. It must have been the xbox.
bayrunner16 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 12:55 PM
  #77  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 69
Default

10th amendment issue?
SOSC is online now  
Old 03-17-2019, 08:11 AM
  #78  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: West Carolina
Posts: 21,925
Default

Originally Posted by mac7769 View Post
Remington will never settle this out of court. Never.
I sure hope not but Smith and Wesson and Ruger both gave in.
Shag is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread