The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 13, 2019, 12:56 AM   #51
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,216
Note that the SCOTUS did not rule on the merits, i. e., it did not conclude that the plaintiffs' claim actually falls within a PLCAA exception. Remington can still, at an appropriate, later stage of the litigation, again seek a federal court ruling that the underlying suit is barred by the PLCAA.

But Remington had taken what is called an interlocutory appeal, an appeal from a non-dispositive ruling. Interlocutory appeals tend to be disfavored. So it's perhaps not a surprise that SCOTUS declined to hear it.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 13, 2019, 01:16 AM   #52
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,627
Frank,

Given that the PLCAA was supposed to protect gunmakers from the financial burden of defending against nuisance lawsuits, wouldn't it make sense for Remington to pursue an interlocutory appeal?

I mean, for the PLCAA to have it's desired effect, it needs to come into play long before the case has been settled.

Just trying to see if I'm thinking about this right.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 13, 2019, 01:52 AM   #53
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,216
Yes, the appeal at this point was worth a try.But courts of appeal won't necessarily hear an interlocutory appeal. That's what I meant when I said that interlocutory appeals were disfavored -- they are by the courts, not necessarily the aggrieved party.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 14, 2019, 06:03 AM   #54
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
....I have a general question for our resident legal eagles, in regard to the claim of Remington being (some degree of) liable for the murders, would this be a "beyond reasonable doubt" or a "preponderance of the evidence" thing??
or some other standard I am unaware of??? perhaps a bit of both??

Does the claim Rem broke the advertising law make it a criminal matter? Would that part (breaking a law) be treated as a criminal matter and Rem's "responsibility" in the murder a civil matter with its different standards?
I haven't had time to do any research on this, but I'm going to bet on "preponderance." This is a civil matter, brought by non-government plaintiffs, so that's the usual standard of proof.

As to the question of whether it's civil or criminal . . . . We all like to think of actions as being either legal or illegal, but the issue is a little squishier than that. So here we go: Sometimes the gov't passes a law and says, "Don't do X. Doing X is a crime, punishable by . . . . " That makes X a crime. Sometimes, it passes a law that says, "Don't do Y. If you do Y and it harms someone, then they can sue you." In this case, Y isn't really a crime, but the gov't has created a private right of action against people who do Y. IOW, the gov't has made Y illegal, but isn't going to prosecute them for you. If you're harmed by someone doing Y, you have to take them to court.

As Frank noted, interlocutory appeals are disfavored. The courts don't want litigants taking every little trial court decision up on appeal. If you think the courts are clogged now, imagine what that would do. That's why the rules generally require that order be a "final order" before an appeal can be taken. The PLCAA is something of an exception to that rule, and I can't blame Remington from trying its hand there. Still, and while this is purely speculative, it may be that there simply wasn't enough evidence in for SCOTUS to hear and dismiss. Personally, I'll be watching for cross-motions for summary judgment and another round of appeals filed then. Whether or not those are heard . . . . who knows?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 14, 2019, 10:43 AM   #55
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,981
I think it's going to be an interesting case. Someone has already pointed out that the shooter murdered his mother, ostensibly to gain access to/possession of the Bushmaster. The reports at the time of the incident seemed to suggest, however, that the mother purchased the Bushmaster because that was what he darling son wanted, and that darling son had ready access to the gun safe.

My fuzzy understanding is that the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to go forward because of an exception in the PLCAA that refers to breaking a state law, and Connecticut apparently has a state law that in some way addresses the way firearms are advertised. The plaintiffs' argument is that Remington/Bushmaster's advertising violated that Connecticut law. The lawsuit was originally dismissed at the lower court level, and it was reinstated and upheld on appeal because of this particular point.

Consequently, I foresee the possibility that the defense will try to stress the point that the shooter didn't own the gun, and that he stole it in oder to arm himself for the shooting. I expect the plaintiffs to argue that, despite the fact that the mother was the purchaser on paper, she bought it because that was what her son wanted and that therefore the advertising was aimed at the son and was in violation of the law.

Stay tuned. :Popcorn:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old November 16, 2019, 10:02 AM   #56
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,205
At the strategic level, the gun control side probably doesn’t expect to win the case anyway. They want to get to depositions so they can go through Remington’s marketing information and figure out what will hurt it worst. They’ll pass that info on to Everytown and Bloomberg.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 16, 2019, 06:35 PM   #57
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
At the strategic level, the gun control side probably doesn’t expect to win the case anyway. They want to get to depositions so they can go through Remington’s marketing information and figure out what will hurt it worst. They’ll pass that info on to Everytown and Bloomberg.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wire...books-67069840
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old November 17, 2019, 10:31 AM   #58
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 389
the amount of misinformation about this case and the Supreme Courts declining to hear the appeal at this time, and what it means, coming from both sides, in the media and from pro and anti gun organizations, is astounding.
heyjoe is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06831 seconds with 9 queries