US Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook victims to sue Remington

[Dusty Britches]

Uh oh.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-lets-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gunmaker-proceed

In an order released Tuesday, the Supreme Court allowed families of Sandy Hook victims to proceed with a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms despite the company's claims that it was protected from liability by federal law.

Remington had petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse a March 2019 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court, which ruled 4-3 that Remington could be sued under state law over its marketing practices, citing one of the few exemptions to the federal law.

The gunmaker argued that the state court's interpretation of the marketing exemption is, "intolerable given Congress's 'intention to create national uniformity'" with the federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. "As the dissenters below noted, lawsuits like this one are precisely the kind the PLCAA was enacted to prevent."

[muzzlebrake]

So I guess Rosie Odonnell can now sue all the forks and spoons mfgrs for making her fat. Makes about as much sense.

[tvc184]

I think this is a dual sovereignty issue. The United States is set up as countries within a country. Each state in effect is an independent country with independent laws within its borders. They can generally make any laws that they wish as long as it does not violate the US Constitution or a federal law prohibiting it.

I believe that federal law does not allow a lawsuit against gun manufacturers because they were used in crimes under a federal lawsuit. A person can sue in state court or federal court however. This case was filed in the Connecticut state court.

I do not think that the United States Supreme Court ruled in this case. They just refuse to hear the case, leaving it in the state court level which is based on the 10th amendment of states rights.

The lawsuit in Connecticut was filed for deceptive trade practices. It was not specifically for making a deadly weapon which could be almost anything but that the A15 was marketed to civilians and the lawsuit claim that is nothing but a military weapon.

Hopefully the lawsuit will fail and hopefully many other states do not allow such lawsuits to happen.

Lawyers get paid at times to dream up actions that have never been brought before. The lawyers in this case came up with a new tactic of not suing the gun manufacturer because it was a gun but because of who it was marketed to.

[jonezy00]

I think proving Remington marketed this gun as a killing gun, weapon of war etc since the law was passed on ‘05 will be very tough. Even in CT, a deep blue state. The ramifications for businesses in CT will be significant, and cause them to flee if the parents are victorious over Remington.

[Johnny44]

Remington marketed the Model 700 as a combat weapon. I hope Remington packs up and moves. They have to be careful with marketing.

Just like half the cost of a GMC is paying for retirements and lawsuits, it will be the same with some gun companies.

[TxLonghorn]

Yeah it’s Connecticut court not scotus (not that the headlines are clear)

[Playa]

Ok, but Anheuser Busch should be sued by the family of every person killed by a drunk driver

[sir shovelhands]

Ok, but Anheuser Busch should be sued by the family of every person killed by a drunk driver

Along with the car manufacturer for not having an ignition interlock breathalyzer as standard equipment.

[Johnny44]

Yep

[Puggy625]

And liquor makers can now be sued for making liquor.

Oh, and the state the person who killed someone while drunk driving can be sued for issuing them a license, because you know, the state has to know that the person was going to do that while in possession of said license.

Very slippery slope...……..but not surprising coming from Yankee land.

[tvc184]

They didn’t sue because it was a deadly weapon. The lawsuit was over deceptive trade practices.... false advertising.

[stickerpatch59]

They didn’t sue because it was a deadly weapon. The lawsuit was over deceptive trade practices.... false advertising.

what was falsely advertised??

[tvc184]

what was falsely advertised??

I think it is a completely bogus argument and is an end around on the law but....

Remington is accused of marketing a military weapon to mostly young males showing them as cool (my word) so the practice is deceptive.

They know that they cannot just sue because it was deadly(which could be almost any product) but because of the way it was marketed. They cite phrases like considering your man card reissued or the opposition will bow down and hyping it up in video games, etc.

It is BS in my opinion? Sure but it is a way of not claiming that the lawsuit is just because you can kill someone with it.

[donpablo]

I was a little surprised to hear they marketed it in video games. If anything hurts them (and it doesn't sound like the suit will be successful), I think it will be that.

[Artos]

It will likely hit the scotus & some point to get tossed eventually...you can thank sr. trump for this front end victory.

deceptive trade practices...sigh.