• 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!

SCOTUS Allos Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms to Proceed

Obscurity

Obscurity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2018
Messages
11,484
Reaction score
5,148
Location
PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed : NPR

Breaking story so I assume it will be updated.

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The court opted not to hear the gun-maker's appeal, in a decision that was announced Tuesday morning. The justices did not include any comment about the case, Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, as they turned it away.
Click to expand...

This is a groundbreaking lawsuit and opens the door wide for future lawsuits.

What say ye?
 
haymarket said:
I say that the US Constitution in effect guarantees the right to sue in court and these people are entitled to sue.

Right of the United States to Sue. | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The idea that we pass special laws to protect gun manufactures is so ass backwards that it is an offense against common sense.
Click to expand...

It's not just gun manufacturers though. Courts often refuse to hear lawsuits if they're considered frivolous and a waste of time.
 
Grand Mal said:
It's not just gun manufacturers though. Courts often refuse to hear lawsuits if they're considered frivolous and a waste of time.
Click to expand...

How is the death of small children considered "frivolous" by anybody?
 
haymarket said:
How is the death of small children considered "frivolous" by anybody?
Click to expand...

Well we can begin by implementing enhanced monitorization of the medical sector. There is an estimated 250,000 to 440,000 deaths every year from medical error and malpractice in America. And the majority of the times the victims dont get to sue because the doctor ends up being that persons final authority.

The doctors kill WAY more people and its way more important than suing a knife maker because someone got stabbed.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Well we can begin by implementing enhanced monitorization of the medical sector. There is an estimated 250,000 to 440,000 deaths every year from medical error and malpractice in America. And the majority of the times the victims dont get to sue because the doctor ends up being that persons final authority.

The doctors kill WAY more people and its way more important than suing a knife maker because someone got stabbed.
Click to expand...

Then why do doctors have malpractice insurance?

Knives have serval purposes as designed. Many of them perfectly harmless as is their intent. A gun has but one purpose as its design intends it to have.
 
The problem is with the joint and several liability concept used in civil law. The scam works like this: you invent a huge amount of damages (after all, many human lives were lost), you know that it is possible to convince a jury that some entity with deep pockets is partly (say 2%?) liable for those damages and can very likely convince a jury to award the plaintiff(s) 2% of their huge actual damages claims and to toss in a generous amount of punitive damages.

Of course, its hard to get a jury to agree that the maker of any tool used to inflict damage was not at least partly (2%?) responsible for its potential for criminal abuse. After all, real suffering did result from that tool's abuse and much sympathy and/or empathy for the injured parties is a hard thing to ask the jury to ignore.

What will likely result is for the gun maker to settle since they stand a good chance to lose big in a jury trial. That, of course, is not justice but it does make the very well paid lawyers (on both sides) happy. I am willing to bet that each defense lawyer will end up with more money than any of the defendants (individually) get.
 
haymarket said:
How is the death of small children considered "frivolous" by anybody?
Click to expand...

Why *****foot around this? If the gun manufacturers are responsible for those deaths then make those guns illegal. Why should you be able to sue someone for doing something that's perfectly legal? Come to think of it, if those people win this suit then they should sue the government that allowed it to happen.
This lawsuit thing just seems kind of spineless. If there's grounds for a lawsuit there's grounds for banning those rifles but there's just not enough cojones in the legislatures to do that. Cowardly politicians dropping the ball into the laps of the courts, that's how it looks to me.
 
Every factor in the case is ludicrous.

1-The AR 15 has been commonly available on the market as a sporting and defensive rifle since the 1960s. In its various forms there are over 30 million of them in the hands of private citizens today.
2-ARs are not used in a majority of mass shootings or in fact in a significant number of criminal acts. Of the 115 mass shootings documented since 1982, less than 20 shootings involved an AR15. They have only come into real prominence since 2012...but even since 2012 the vast majority involved handguns...not ARs.
3-Far from being a combat weapon, the AR15 has NEVER been used in combat. However it sees DAILY use in sporting events, hunting activities, and even home and personal defense.
4-The best defense against the plaintiffs argument is the Sandy Hook case itself. The claim is that he chose the AR15 because of its lethality. Yet...in a target rich environment with no opposition of any type in over 12 minutes, he 'only' managed to kill 26 people. That comes out to approximately 1 victim every 28 seconds. But the rate of fire of an AR is literally as fast as you can pull your finger. Conversely...the VA Tech shooter managed to kill 32 using handguns.

Over 30 MILLION ARs. Less than 20 mass shootings specifically using an ar15. Meanwhile..."Low estimates estimate 180 justifiable homicides, 1800 injures and 3841 Defensive Gun Uses with a rifle. or 6% of all Defensive Gun Uses." in any given year.

The AR15 is not a combat weapon. It is not a weapon of war. It is a sporting weapon. It is a hunting weapon. It is a defensive use firearm. And occasionally...in a very few number of times...it is misused by evil bastards.
 
Fledermaus said:
What wrong did the manufacturer commit?
Click to expand...

It appears the lawsuit used a very specific argument, that relies on Connecticut state law against deceptive marketing.

They used evidence of Remington promoting the militaristic qualities of the ar-15, and thus the plaintiffs say this drew a specific type of buyer more prone to using a weapon for violence.

Then again I am a layman so I am probablygetting it wrong.
 
Grand Mal said:
Why *****foot around this? If the gun manufacturers are responsible for those deaths then make those guns illegal. Why should you be able to sue someone for doing something that's perfectly legal? Come to think of it, if those people win this suit then they should sue the government that allowed it to happen.
This lawsuit thing just seems kind of spineless. If there's grounds for a lawsuit there's grounds for banning those rifles but there's just not enough cojones in the legislatures to do that. Cowardly politicians dropping the ball into the laps of the courts, that's how it looks to me.
Click to expand...

The plaintiffs are arguing Remington misled buyers with ads that targeted a specific type of person, promoting the firearm and its military styling and useage.

This in turn is what the plaintiffs are alleging. You should not be promoting military or military type weaponry for civilian use. That's what they're using to sue remington.
 
Obscurity said:
It appears the lawsuit used a very specific argument, that relies on Connecticut state law against deceptive marketing.

They used evidence of Remington promoting the militaristic qualities of the ar-15, and thus the plaintiffs say this drew a specific type of buyer more prone to using a weapon for violence.

Then again I am a layman so I am probablygetting it wrong.
Click to expand...

So... Advertising.

But the shooter didn't buy the weapon. He stole it. After committing a murder.

And how would the advertising be "deceptive"?
 
Grand Mal said:
Why *****foot around this? If the gun manufacturers are responsible for those deaths then make those guns illegal. Why should you be able to sue someone for doing something that's perfectly legal? Come to think of it, if those people win this suit then they should sue the government that allowed it to happen.
This lawsuit thing just seems kind of spineless. If there's grounds for a lawsuit there's grounds for banning those rifles but there's just not enough cojones in the legislatures to do that. Cowardly politicians dropping the ball into the laps of the courts, that's how it looks to me.
Click to expand...

If a manufacturer of any product intends for that product to take a life when it is used properly, why are they not responsible for at least some of that.

They are saying - here is our product that is meant to kill. If you use it as intended, killing can result.
 
This is EXCELLENT for America!!

If I get fat I can sue McDonald's, Nabisco and Kroger for providing me the opportunity to buy food.

If I get arrested for DUI I can sue InBev, Coors and Ford for providing me the opportunity to buy alcoholic beverages and automobiles

If I rob a bank I can sue the US Treasury for providing me the opportunity to have money.
 
Obscurity said:
The plaintiffs are arguing Remington misled buyers with ads that targeted a specific type of person, promoting the firearm and its military styling and useage.
This in turn is what the plaintiffs are alleging. You should not be promoting military or military type weaponry for civilian use. That's what they're using to sue remington.
Click to expand...
Yes, but what these people are alleging is not true. It isn't a military weapon. And there would be nothing wrong with civilians owning it even if it was a military weapon.

Does anyone know if Remington can still have these people's homes and retirement accounts seized to recoup their legal costs once the lawsuit fails?

I assume yes, but I'd prefer to know for sure.
 
Obscurity said:
The plaintiffs are arguing Remington misled buyers with ads that targeted a specific type of person, promoting the firearm and its military styling and useage.

This in turn is what the plaintiffs are alleging. You should not be promoting military or military type weaponry for civilian use. That's what they're using to sue remington.
Click to expand...

WTF? Did you, by chance, miss the militia reference in the 2A? The 2A exists precisely for the purpose of protecting civilian ownership of militia suitable arms. The 2A is not about target, sport or hunting uses of arms and contains explicit language to that effect.
 
haymarket said:
If a manufacturer of any product intends for that product to take a life when it is used properly, why are they not responsible for at least some of that.

They are saying - here is our product that is meant to kill. If you use it as intended, killing can result.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I suppose you would limit gun makers to making only one model of gun, called "The Government Model" - it costs quite a lot, it doesn't work much and you can't ever fire it. ;)
 
Fledermaus said:
Suing a manufacturer who did no wrong.

Not good.
Click to expand...

Well lets see. They built a weapon of war and developed a 'civilian" version of the weapon. Then they took the so called "civilian version" and advertised and sold it as a weapon of war to civilians. I do not think that the manufacture saw it having many uses except to kill humans, as it was not seemingly advertised as a hunting gun. So maybe the manufacture did wrong in how they built, advertised and sold the weapon to civilians.
 
haymarket said:
I say that the US Constitution in effect guarantees the right to sue in court and these people are entitled to sue.

Right of the United States to Sue. | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The idea that we pass special laws to protect gun manufactures is so ass backwards that it is an offense against common sense.
Click to expand...

We pass laws on product liability when the product, used correctly, causes damage to other people or the user. Cigarettes for example. Guns are designed to fire a projectile at speeds that cause damage when they impact. It is high time for gunmakers to be held liable for the designed use of their product.
 
independentusa said:
Well lets see. They built a weapon of war and developed a 'civilian" version of the weapon. Then they took the so called "civilian version" and advertised and sold it as a weapon of war to civilians. I do not think that the manufacture saw it having many uses except to kill humans, as it was not seemingly advertised as a hunting gun. So maybe the manufacture did wrong in how they built, advertised and sold the weapon to civilians.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure you could be more wrong even if you tried to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom