• 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!

Court reinstates Sandy Hook lawsuit against gunmaker

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good!


Supreme Court reinstates Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit against gunmaker - StamfordAdvocate

NEWTOWN - The state’s highest court has sided with the Sandy Hook families whose wrongful death lawsuit against the nation’s oldest gunmaker was thrown out of court, by ordering the high-profile case back to trial court.

The Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday means that the families’ argument that Remington “negligently entrusted” to civilians the AR-15-style rifle used by the Sandy Hook massacre shooter can be decided by a jury.


The jury will weigh that argument against Remington’s defense that the company is protected by a federal law that shields gun makers from liability when firearms are misused.

“It falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet,” part of the ruling reads.
Click to expand...

Very good.
 
If I was on the jury, I know how I would vote. I would not hold the gunmaker liable.
 
Crovax said:
I hope the plaintiffs lose and are forced to pay the court costs
Click to expand...

I hope the defense points out that the federal government used to sell military surplus, semiautomatic, magazine fed intermediate caliber firearms to US citizens without background checks for $20 including shipping.
 
calamity said:
Very good.
Click to expand...

Assuming for a moment this this goes forward, it opens up a mess that might be difficult to contain as applied elsewhere.

The original suit is based on two premises. One, that a gun designed "as a battlefield weapon to maximize fatalities" should have never been "entrusted... to an untrained civilian public." Two, that all the companies involved intentionally promoted the weapon with "placement in video games and macho militaristic marketing slogans that appealed to a population of mentally unstable young men."

By that standard then just about any gun used by the military, or by extension law enforcement, could be isolated as a means to find liability by the manufacturer when used to commit any crime by anyone else. Because this is a civil matter the burden of proving point one and two is fairly low.

In the pursuit of accountability we create an odd condition.

By that standard I can prove that certain cars, in combination with how they are depicted in various video games and in combination how they are advertised (a bit of a stretch,) should not be entrusted to the "untrained" public either.

Also, by that standard I can prove that anyone killed by gang violence means going after those weapon manufacturers regardless of advertising intention or legality of product purchase. It just means changing a few definitions and applying some different reasoning to points one and two.

In other words, we have no real way to ensure this does not domino into other aspects of product liability, arguably some by the wording of any future suit but not really. It all comes down to the nature of the event, the suit, and how the jury handles both points as applied to any product.

In our efforts to reconsider gun control we may be making a very big mistake even if this is a perceived win in terms of what happened at Sandy Hook. Example, who I do not see named in the suit are those to manufactured the medications the shooter in this case was taking, nor the "psychiatrist/therapist" dealing with him.

My main concern is even if we suggest this is a big win for those who oppose gun manufactures, what is next? (And how much fallout will this win cost everyone else across a plethora of products.)
 
Rucker61 said:
I hope the defense points out that the federal government used to sell military surplus, semiautomatic, magazine fed intermediate caliber firearms to US citizens without background checks for $20 including shipping.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a bad idea.
 
I wish the media would stop using half-truth headlines ...

Headline blares "Supreme Court ...", making one think it is the Supreme Court, when in fact it is "Connecticut Supreme Court ..."
 
Barnacle said:
I wish the media would stop using half-truth headlines ...

Headline blares "Supreme Court ...", making one think it is the Supreme Court, when in fact it is "Connecticut Supreme Court ..."
Click to expand...

Well it was from a Connecticut news source so the context is right
 
We are all mostly products of our own experiences.

I'm guessing if it was 1 of our 6 year olds who was shot and needlessly killed some here might have different opinions.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Assuming for a moment this this goes forward, it opens up a mess that might be difficult to contain as applied elsewhere.

The original suit is based on two premises. One, that a gun designed "as a battlefield weapon to maximize fatalities" should have never been "entrusted... to an untrained civilian public."
Click to expand...

Problem one is that the AR-15 wasn't designed "as a battlefield weapon to maximize fatalities".

Two, that all the companies involved intentionally promoted the weapon with "placement in video games and macho militaristic marketing slogans that appealed to a population of mentally unstable young men."
Click to expand...

An even more ridiculous claim. If that's all they got, I would have tossed the lawsuit out, too. That's without even having to consider the protections of the PLCAA. We may as hold the makers of cars feature in Grand Theft Auto liable for homicides, rapes, assaults and robberies by young men in the age group targeted by GTA.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
We are all mostly products of our own experiences.

I'm guessing if it was 1 of our 6 year olds who was shot and needlessly killed some here might have different opinions.
Click to expand...

Regarding what?
 
lol...never before have I seen so much whine over the prospect of a jury deciding a case.
 
Threegoofs said:
Sounds like a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Yet, it wasn't. Just think, the Democratic majority in the House and Senate had no problem with JFK allowing the sale of 260,000 actually weapons to war to civilians in this country in 1963.
 
Rucker61 said:
Problem one is that the AR-15 wasn't designed "as a battlefield weapon to maximize fatalities".

An even more ridiculous claim. If that's all they got, I would have tossed the lawsuit out, too. That's without even having to consider the protections of the PLCAA. We may as hold the makers of cars feature in Grand Theft Auto liable for homicides, rapes, assaults and robberies by young men in the age group targeted by GTA.
Click to expand...

That is more or less what I am trying to get at. The risk is discovery where all internal communications related to AR-15 advertising and product placement ends up in the hands of those looking to exploit what those intentions really are.

The logic is problematic to the point I could apply it to so many other products and/or conditions that product manufactures all end up liable for the actions the public takes with those products.

I see problem after problem if this lawsuit ends up going forward as is.
 
Barnacle said:
I wish the media would stop using half-truth headlines ...

Headline blares "Supreme Court ...", making one think it is the Supreme Court, when in fact it is "Connecticut Supreme Court ..."
Click to expand...

lol...no, you thought it was SCOTUS when in fact it was SCOTSOCT
 
calamity said:
lol...never before have I seen so much whine over the prospect of a jury deciding a case.
Click to expand...

Well, the implications are that states can just ignore federal laws on gun control. But to you, I guess, that's a feature, not a bug.
 
OrphanSlug said:
That is more or less what I am trying to get at. The risk is discovery where all internal communications related to AR-15 advertising and product placement ends up in the hands of those looking to exploit what those intentions really are.

The logic is problematic to the point I could apply it to so many other products and/or conditions that product manufactures all end up liable for the actions the public takes with those products.

I see problem after problem if this lawsuit ends up going forward as is.
Click to expand...

We know that sports cars are marketed to those who are intended to use them to break the law. That doesn't hold true for manufacturers of AR-15s.
 
Rucker61 said:
Yet, it wasn't. Just think, the Democratic majority in the House and Senate had no problem with JFK allowing the sale of 260,000 actually weapons to war to civilians in this country in 1963.
Click to expand...

So you;re a fan of selling virtually free weapons to anyone who wants them without a background check?

FREEDOM!
 
Yet another horrible decision by the court.

the precedent has always been that a maker of a product is not liable for the use of said product unless
in the making of said product is a flaw that would cause injury to said party.

basically what this means is that if you don't use a gun or car or washing machine or any other product you buy
as intended then the company is not liable for it.

IE AR is not responsible for what some crazy guy does with a gun that he stole.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you;re a fan of selling virtually free weapons to anyone who wants them without a background check?

FREEDOM!
Click to expand...

The Democrats were. Actually, the firearms weren't offered to anyone that wanted them (background checks didn't exist at that point) - they were only sold to members of the NRA.
 
So ****ing laughable.

"They claimed the gunmaker and sellers knew civilians were unfit to operate the assault rifle, and yet they continued selling it."

Close to 20 million ARs have been sold with more than twice that amount having been built by sportsmen from kits...40 MILLION gun holders...and their claim is that civilians are 'unfit' to handle an AR.

Lets see....
This is KUNTZMAN...


And this is a girl shooting the gun SHE BUILT....



I can see why KUNTZMAN wants guns banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom