• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington, lower court ruling overturned

OscarLevant said:
2a lovers head's are gonna explode!
Click to expand...
The gun operated as designed, was AWB compliant, was bought from an FFL including a background check, was registered to it's legal owner, was stored in a rated safe.....I don't think they have a case.
 
ataraxia said:
A nuclear weapon is just a tool too. Because we all know nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. So time to stop the unconstitutional ban on public sales of nuclear arms, right?

And what’s the worry about the North Koreans and Iranians getting nukes? If you ban nukes, they will just do the same thing with trucks and nail clippers, right?
Click to expand...
When nukes start going off in the US, then we'll talk about nukes. Not before.
 
NotreDame said:
You can dispense with the tangent of bump stocks and high capacity clips.

Safe use of AR-15: target practice, shooting off some rounds at undomesticated animals in a field...

Justifiable use: self-defense.

They are not parallel to smokes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I hunted and killed a bore last year with an AR15. Does that count?
 
OscarLevant said:
One particular company advertises, to civilians, all about the militaristic applications of the assault rifle they manufacture,
Click to expand...
The gun used in Sandy Hook was not an 'assault rifle'. It wasn't even an 'assault-weapon'. It wasn't an 'assault-anything'. The state had banned 'assault-weapons', totally. Banned. Gone. Not even grandfathered. Totally gone.

It was just a rifle. I used one to kill a bore last year. If it'll kill game it'll kill people. Are you going to ban hunting rifles? How well did that work out for New Zealand?
 
TurtleDude said:
You should go and try to seize AR 15s from the people who own them. Of course you won't./
Click to expand...
Police do it all the time under these new Red Flag laws. There's no revolt. No rebellion. Just one house after another being raided and gun after a gun being confiscated. No warrant needed, either. Gun confiscation is so easy now that the militia portion of the 2A is dead and States are addicted to Federal funding.

Enjoy your toys while you have them :)
 
OscarLevant said:
One particular company advertises, to civilians, all about the militaristic applications of the assault rifle they manufacture,
Click to expand...

Did this company in fact do that? It’s possible they did and after reading the decision and what’s reported by the decision to be the theory of the complaint, I’m interested seeing the evidence to support that claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Saladin4 said:
AR-15=Favorite weapon of criminals and terrorists...Outlaw them.NOW!
Click to expand...

You may have spoken to broadly there man. Criminals? Is there a research study, conducted scientifically, in which criminals and/or terrorists were polled about their “favorite weapon” and they answered AR-15?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OscarLevant said:
One particular company advertises, to civilians, all about the militaristic applications of the assault rifle they manufacture,
Click to expand...
They don't manufacture assault rifles at all, though.

Like...not at all.

They just don't make them.
 
NotreDame said:
How do you know they have a “strong case”? Have you seen their evidence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Disable your tapatalk sig and I'll tell you :)

it's in your Tapatalk settings.
 
NWRatCon said:
Chill, dude. My point is, there is an exception in the LAW that may allow the suit. Not sure if that distinction is of interest to you. I like discussing the finer points, since it tends to avoid the knee jerk responses. I'm trying to keep up with a number of disparate threads (home with a cold), so I may have missed a distinction in your argument (although, frankly, I still don't see it).
Click to expand...

Okay. To now formally comment on the lawsuit itself.

I agree that there ostensibly is an exception under PLCAA for the lawsuit.

The Connecticut statute allows for “personal injuries” as the state statute was to be construed based on, in part, to decisions interpreting Federal Trade Commission Act. Those decisions, apparently, “upported the view that wrongful advertising that poses a genuine risk of physical harm falls under the broad purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act and, by incorporation, CUTPA.” DONNA L. SOTO, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF VICTORIA L. SOTO), ET AL. v. BUSHMASTER FIREARMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL, (CT. 2019).

It’s not a bad theory. I’m very interested in seeing the plaintiff’s evidence.

I’m gonna try and find the actual complaint. I’m curious as to why defendants did not seek removal to federal court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
Okay. To now formally comment on the lawsuit itself.

I agree that there ostensibly is an exception under PLCAA for the lawsuit.

The Connecticut statute allows for “personal injuries” as the state statute was to be construed based on, in part, to decisions interpreting Federal Trade Commission Act. Those decisions, apparently, “upported the view that wrongful advertising that poses a genuine risk of physical harm falls under the broad purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act and, by incorporation, CUTPA.” DONNA L. SOTO, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF VICTORIA L. SOTO), ET AL. v. BUSHMASTER FIREARMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL, (CT. 2019).

It’s not a bad theory. I’m very interested in seeing the plaintiff’s evidence.

I’m gonna try and find the actual complaint. I’m curious as to why defendants did not seek removal to federal court.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the considered response. I suspect that the Plaintiffs wanted to pursue the action in State court under local laws, and the Defendants couldn't demonstrate a basis for removal because they operate, and/or advertised in the State. Their "presence" in the State might have obviated removal. Or, they thought they'd get a quick dismissal and didn't want to bother taking the time. Oops!

I'm not a big fan of federal preemption, anyway, and this is a particularly ham-handed law of questionable validity. In most instances, conservative courts would object vociferously, but somehow I think they won't.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Police do it all the time under these new Red Flag laws. There's no revolt. No rebellion. Just one house after another being raided and gun after a gun being confiscated. No warrant needed, either. Gun confiscation is so easy now that the militia portion of the 2A is dead and States are addicted to Federal funding.

Enjoy your toys while you have them :)
Click to expand...

I think you are seriously mistaken
 
Wayne Jr said:
I could be. Link to the revolt. Where's it going down?
Click to expand...

When are democrats going to start breaking down doors to seize AR 15s that have just been banned by the Democrat party?
 
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
A nonsensical reply. Figures.
Click to expand...

Actually his reply was spot on, and exposed your reasoning for the nonsense it was. Maybe try reading your post, and then his reply again? Hopefully you will be able to understand why his post was so spot on.
 
Excon said:
:lamo
Health hazard? :lamo
It is a tool, not a health issue.
Click to expand...

It could be a health issue in less than two years when President O'Rourke declares it is...
 
NotreDame said:
Did this company in fact do that? It’s possible they did and after reading the decision and what’s reported by the decision to be the theory of the complaint, I’m interested seeing the evidence to support that claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I recall seeing the ads on a documentary of a lawsuit of an assualt rifle manufacturer, but i forget if it was Remington.
 
TurtleDude said:
What did the gun maker do that harmed the family? The gun was sold to a licensed dealer pursuant to the laws of the USA and CT. The firearm was then sold to a retail buyer after she passed a background check and waiting period. Her son shot her in the head while she slept with a gun that none of the gun haters yet want to ban, and he took her other firearms and murdered people in violation of several of the most serious laws in CT.
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me questions that have exactly noting to do with my post?
 
tres borrachos said:
Why are you asking me questions that have exactly noting to do with my post?
Click to expand...


You said you were on the side of the families who are suing so I asked you what does that mean

tres borrachos said:
It will be interesting to see this play out. I'm not a fan at all of suing manufacturers (like the cigarette manufacturers) for the actions of the stupid.

That said, I always see these things involving those families, and I can't help but be on their sides.

I'm torn here.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
You said you were on the side of the families who are suing so I asked you what does that mean
Click to expand...

I'm always on the side of the people who lose a loved one to gun violence. Unlike you, I have a heart. I never said I support their suit. In fact, I said that I was torn. I said I support them and are on their sides. If they want to sue, let them. No worries - the SCOTUS will reject it. I assumed all smart lawyers knew that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom