News that gun goobers won't like....

[Nomad]

I hope this opens the door for families of gun violence victims to sue the entire fucking industry right out of the business!!!

And if they don't sue them out of business, I hope the huge settlements make the cost of buying a gun so high you have to take out a mortgage!!!



*********************************

Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/n...eme-court.html

By Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey

March 14, 2019

The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The lawsuit mounted a direct challenge to the immunity that Congress granted to gun companies to shield them from litigation when their weapons are used in a crime. The ruling allows the case, brought by victims’ families, to maneuver around the federal shield, creating an opening for them to potentially bring their claims to trial and hold the companies, including Remington, the gun maker, liable for the attack.

The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby. And it stands to have wider ramifications, experts said, by charting a possible legal road map for victims’ relatives and survivors from other mass shootings who want to sue gun companies.

In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Lawyers for the families argued that those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire. The attack traumatized the nation and made Newtown, Conn.,*the small town where it happened, a rallying point in the broader debate over gun violence.

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

In the majority opinion, the justices wrote that “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.”

The families hailed the ruling as a victory. “I am thrilled and tremendously grateful,” said Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan died in his first-grade classroom. “No one has blanket immunity. There are consequences. We want our day in court to see why they do this this way, and what needs to change.”

Beyond the lawsuit against the gun companies, victims’ families*have also had successes*
recently in lawsuits against Alex Jones,*the far-right provocateur, who spread bogus claims about the shooting, including that the families were actors involved in a plot to confiscate firearms.

The families sought legal action after they received death threats and were targeted for harassment.

Lawyers for Remington, as well as other gun companies named in the suit, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

“The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope’’ of the federal protections, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing the firearm industry, said in a statement following the ruling.

The families faced long odds as they pursued a*novel strategy*to find a route around the federal protections, and they will confront major hurdles as the case proceeds. Their hope was to bring the case to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications that they have fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing and possibly damaging glimpse into how the industry operates.

Nora Freeman Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford University and an author of an amicus brief signed by law professors in this case, said that the ruling showed that the federal protections were “not impenetrable.”

“This is not the end,” she said, adding, “Any path for plaintiffs will be long and strewn with obstacles. But this opinion suggests there may well be a road, which before was unclear.”

The high stakes posed by the case stirred a vigorous response from both sides that only intensified after recurring episodes of deadly mass violence that followed the Newtown attack.

Among those who lobbied in support of the lawsuit were gun violence prevention groups, emergency doctors who have treated patients wounded by assault rifle fire and a statewide association of school superintendents. Many gun-rights groups also raised concerns, including the National Rifle Association, which contended in its brief that allowing the case to move ahead stood to “eviscerate” the gun companies’ legal protections.

The ruling comes as yet another twist in the lawsuit’s circuitous path through the court system, one that continued far longer than many, including legal experts and the families, had initially expected. “This decision was a long time in coming but it was more than worth the wait,” said Joshua D. Koskoff, a lawyer for the families.

“These families were not going to go away,” he added, “no matter how long it took.”

The*ruling had been delayed*after Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gun makers, filed for bankruptcy last year as its sales declined and debts mounted.

The lawsuit, brought by family members of nine people who were killed and a teacher who was shot and survived, was originally filed in 2014, then moved to federal court, where a judge ordered that it be returned to the state level.

The families were given a glimmer of hope when a State Superior Court judge, Barbara N. Bellis, permitted the case to approach a trial before she*ultimately dismissed it. She found that the claims fell “squarely within the broad immunity” provided by federal law.

In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which restricts lawsuits against gun sellers and makers by granting industrywide immunity from blame when one of their products is used in a crime. Lawmakers behind the measure cited a need to foil what they described as predatory and politically driven litigation.

The law does allow exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of so-called negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it. In the lawsuit, the families pushed to broaden the scope to include the manufacturer, Remington, which was named along with a wholesaler and a local retailer in the suit.

The lawsuit said that the companies were wrong to entrust an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield. Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.

“Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” Mr. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, told the panel of judges during oral arguments in the case in 2017. The weapon used by Mr. Lanza had been legally purchased by his mother, Nancy Lanza, whom he also killed.

Lawyers representing the gun companies argued that the claims raised in the lawsuit were specifically the kind that law inoculated them against. In oral arguments, lawyers for the companies argued that the weapons were marketed as being used for home defense and target practice, and not to commit violence.

They said that agreeing with the families’ arguments would require amending the law or ignoring how it had been applied in the past.

James B. Vogts, a lawyer for Remington, said in court that the shooting “was a tragedy that cannot be forgotten.”

“But no matter how tragic,” he added, “no matter how much we wish those children and their teachers were not lost and those damages not suffered, the law needs to be applied dispassionately.”

[Mr.Badguy]

I don't see it sticking TBH.

[TTQ64]

uh, interesting.

They should have something were kops and stand your ground racist are held accountable for murdering minorities.

These kind of victories happen when people actually care...……...just saying.

Congress stood up for these victims...when will they stand up for Blacks?

[Sirthinksalot]

They need to extend this to all products that people misuse. Wouldn't it be great if Honda could be sued for drunken driving homicides? Let's put the knife makers out of business too. People get stabbed to death.

[Nomad]

They need to extend this to all products that people misuse. Wouldn't it be great if Honda could be sued for drunken driving homicides? Let's put the knife makers out of business too. People get stabbed to death.

Cars and knives have other practical purposes which are their main reason for existing.

Guns are made for killing other living beings.

Hunting rifles might have an alibi, but hand guns and assault style rifles are not meant for sport hunting.

Time to sue all money grubbing gun making bastards back to the stone age.

[Guno צְבִי]

They need to extend this to all products that people misuse. Wouldn't it be great if Honda could be sued for drunken driving homicides? Let's put the knife makers out of business too. People get stabbed to death.

so cars are designed to kill, gobber?

[ThatOwlWoman]

Excellent.

[Mr.Badguy]

so cars are designed to kill, gobber?

They certainly have lots of safety features/regulations and lots of legal requirements for registration and insurance don't they?

[Sirthinksalot]

Cars and knives have other practical purposes which are their main reason for existing.

Guns are made for killing other living beings.

Hunting rifles might have an alibi, but hand guns and assault style rifles are not meant for sport hunting.

Time to sue all money grubbing gun making bastards back to the stone age.

First off, guns are not designed to kill innocent people. If some maniac misuses a firearm, that's not the manufacturer's fault any more than it's a car or knife manufacturer's fault when someone misuses their product. Show me a gun manufacturer who's labeling indicates one of the intended uses is the harming of innocent people.

so cars are designed to kill, gobber?

Second, and this applies to both of you goobers comments, sometimes it is legal and appropriate to use a gun to kill. It's called self defense and it's something every human has the right to. I'm surprised you weren't aware of it.

[Nomad]

First off, guns are not designed to kill innocent people. If some maniac misuses a firearm, that's not the manufacturer's fault any more than it's a car or knife manufacturer's fault when someone misuses their product. Show me a gun manufacturer who's labeling indicates one of the intended uses is the harming of innocent people.

Show me a gun manufacturer whose labeling indicates that the intended uses is NOT the harming of innocent people.

Show me a gun manufacturer that even gives a shit what their product is used for after they get their hands on the money.

Show me a mass murderer who has used a knife to kill over 5O people from the window of a high rise hotel several hundred yards away.

Show me how many murders were committed using cars vs how many were committed using guns over the past decade.

Second, and this applies to both of you goobers comments, sometimes it is legal and appropriate to use a gun to kill. It's called self defense and it's something every human has the right to. I'm surprised you weren't aware of it.

If it weren't for the insane number of guns floating around in society today thanks to the greed of the gun industry and their scumbag lobbyists, using guns for self defense wouldn't even be an issue.

You're saying that the necessary use for guns is combating a situation they created to begin with.

Fucking bullshit.

[Sirthinksalot]

Show me a gun manufacturer whose labeling indicates that the intended uses is NOT the harming of innocent people.

Thanks, I accept your concession.

Show me a gun manufacturer that even gives a shit what their product is used for after they get their hands on the money.

Show me a mass murderer who has used a knife to kill over 5O people from the window of a high rise hotel several hundred yards away.

Only one more mass murderer has used a gun to kill over 5O people from the window of a high rise hotel several hundred yards away than has used a knife to do the same.

Show me how many murders were committed using cars vs how many were committed using guns over the past decade.used a knife to kill over 5O people from the window of a high rise hotel several hundred yards away.

I don't feel like putting in the effort to search an entire decade. Suffice it to say the number of people killed by inappropriate use of firearms is close to the same as the number of people killed by inappropriate use of vehicles annually. The intent of the user of the product is not up to the manufacturer of a legal product. The truth is, goobers like you know you can't get legislation passed to take away people's guns, so you run to the courts and hope they will leftist-late from the bench.

If it weren't for the insane number of guns floating around in society today thanks to the greed of the gun industry and their scumbag lobbyists, using guns for self defense wouldn't even be an issue.

You're saying that the necessary use for guns is combating a situation they created to begin with.

Gun manufacturers didn't create human's desire to hurt other humans. It turns out, people were killing each other even before guns were invented.

Fucking bullshit.

^^^Your arguments are.

[Abatis]

I hope this opens the door for families of gun violence victims to sue the entire fucking industry right out of the business!!!

And if they don't sue them out of business, I hope the huge settlements make the cost of buying a gun so high you have to take out a mortgage!!!



*********************************

Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/n...eme-court.html

By Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey

March 14, 2019

<SNIP>

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.”

<SNIP>

If anti-gunners weren't so fucking stupid they might be taken seriously . . .

Granted, the reporting here is typical liberal pablum and it would lead leftist dummies to think this ruling was deeply anti-gun and gun rights were on the ropes and soon assault weapons will be banned but I have dissected away all the chaff so you can focus on the important fact.

The court agreed with the lower court that most of the charges of the lawsuit can not go forward because of the federal shield law. Those attacks on the gun, as 'it's a bullet hose made to spray rounds' nonsense, and its actual sale / availability to the public, were thrown out.

The only attack remaining is focused on how the gun was advertised.

If any company will feel the wrath of this decision it will be advertising writers and magazines.

This is more a 1st Amendment case than a 2nd Amendment case.

[RB 60]

Cars and knives have other practical purposes which are their main reason for existing.

Guns are made for killing other living beings.

Hunting rifles might have an alibi, but hand guns and assault style rifles are not meant for sport hunting.

Time to sue all money grubbing gun making bastards back to the stone age.

I can do a hell of a lot more damage with my hunting rifles than I can with my military issued rifles or handguns. Oh, and they aren't registered, no one knows I have them. Come and get em'

[Nomad]

Yeah, I knew this thread would get the cockroaches all stirred up.

FACT: All mass murders are committed using GUNS, as are most individual murders and armed robberies and car-jackings and home invasions etc, etc, etc.

The handgun is the tool of choice for ALL violent criminals and are used in 99.9% of violent crimes.

You goobers can make your idiotic comparisons to cars and knives and garden tools and sticks and stones and until your faces turn blue, but we all know it's just your usual chicken-shit attempt to deflect attention away from the FACT that the excessive availability of GUNS in this country is a PUBLIC NUISANCE and something needs to be done about it.

And eventually something will be done about it when society gets sick enough of the violence that they stop allowing ignorant selfish right-wingers to elect other ignorant selfish and greedy right-wingers to positions of authority.

[Nomad]

I can do a hell of a lot more damage with my hunting rifles than I can with my military issued rifles or handguns. Oh, and they aren't registered, no one knows I have them. Come and get em'

Prove it.

Start by shoving one of them up your ass and firing a round.