|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 14, 2019, 01:03 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,312
|
CT Supreme Court-Remington CAN be sued for Sandy Hook
A link to the story is listed below. The CT Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and said Remington can be sued for the Sandy Hook shooting based on "wrongful marketing", that is the way Remington advertised the AR-15 style rifle.
I'm certain some of the legal folk here can talk about this with a lot more knowledge than I can including whether or not this could go up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's the link to the AP story. https://www.apnews.com/a4b101a04dc9469999880a61280fd0da |
March 14, 2019, 01:35 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,766
|
Wrongful marketing? Wow, if successful that could open up an enormous can of worms into the deep pockets of almost ANY company. While I can't see how any marketing Remington did somehow convinced someone of sane mind it was OK to mass murder dozens of young school children, who knows what a sympathetic and anti gun biased jury might do.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin Last edited by sigarms228; March 14, 2019 at 01:41 PM. |
March 14, 2019, 01:43 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
According to the article, the wrongful marketing suit will be reinstated. Claims Remington marketed to high risk individuals in order to increase sales.
|
March 14, 2019, 01:54 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
|
On one board, someone asked will makers of alcoholic beverages be sued ? "Wrongful marketing " ?
|
March 14, 2019, 01:55 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 27, 2001
Location: Upland, indiana
Posts: 409
|
Since the anti-gunners consider anyone would buy a gun to be "high risk" they probably did market to high risk individuals.
__________________
Christian, American, Heterosexual, Pro-gun Conservative. Any Questions? James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Mark Douglass |
March 14, 2019, 02:44 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Dale, according to your AP story the CT court agreed that most of the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the federal law, but that a state claim for "wrongful marketing" would not be dismissed.
I don't know what wrongful marketing under CT code is, but this sounds like liability for mere speech without any consumer protection component. I wish AP would incorporate links to the underlying docs. The Reuters report included: Quote:
The Ct Sup Ct's majority: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supa...1/331CR865.pdf and dissent: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supa.../331CR865E.pdf
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; March 14, 2019 at 03:34 PM. |
|
March 14, 2019, 03:01 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
Does anyone have examples of this marketing? I’d like to see it. Did they really target mentally unstable teens with murderous intent?
|
March 14, 2019, 03:12 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
The real surprise for me in this is that there were actually three judges in Connecticut who were willing to follow the law. Liberal judges with personal agendas are a pox on |
|
March 14, 2019, 04:23 PM | #9 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Now we need to get technical. This is all about a highly technical point of civil procedure (which is one reason the press will get it wrong). This is still in a very preliminary stage, and the plaintiffs haven't won yet. (This lawsuit was previously discussed at length in this thread. I outline very basic civil litigation procedure in this post.)
There's still a lot of waiting and seeing to be done as the lawsuit grind through the process.
__________________
"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 |
||
March 14, 2019, 04:28 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
If you google Remington or Bushmaster AR-15 ads, you can see the prose and pictures. The 'man card' theme is prominent.
Now, if this goes to trial, it would be interesting to see the debate of experts to demonstrate that such imagery and prose clearly leads to aggressive behavior or contributes to it in some extent. That is controversial in the aggression literature. I know who I would call pro and con.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 14, 2019, 04:39 PM | #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Frank posted an excellent summary, especially with this...
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
||
March 14, 2019, 05:36 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,312
|
Thank you to the legal folk...heck everybody that's posted so far on this thread...but especially the legal folk for their analysis and for going out and getting more information on this and writing it more completely and understandably than the original article.
For me the explanations were slow going but I sure have a better understanding now. Thank you again. |
March 14, 2019, 05:44 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
So here it is...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
March 14, 2019, 06:22 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 401
|
Anti-gun people in Hollywood have long claimed that their violent movies and TV shows could not possibly be at fault in pushing unstable people over the edge into committing violence. They shout "First Amendment," and most anti-gun groups have stood by them. The Connecticut case could be a very interesting precedent if the plaintiffs win. If advertising by a gun maker can push people into violence, then how could anyone claim that a violent movie does not do the same? The fallout could be very far ranging from this case.
|
March 14, 2019, 06:41 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,885
|
Of course these don't count:
https://gundesigndotorg.files.wordpr...tion.jpg?w=580 https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-st...t-quality=auto https://www.motherjones.com/wp-conte...ICarry_500.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/4e...a82ff18979.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d3/cf...adf8b1c918.jpg I must be showing my age . . . https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....4,203,200_.jpg But I digress . . . |
March 15, 2019, 08:07 AM | #16 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
There has been 'personal agendas' among judges for as long as there have been judges. Just because their 'agenda' agrees with yours doesn't make it 'proper'..
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” Last edited by USNRet93; March 15, 2019 at 08:13 AM. |
||
March 15, 2019, 10:47 AM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
As an example, there have been SCOTUS decisions authored by Justice Antonin Scalia in which he wrote that he didn't particularly like the result the law compelled him to find, but that he had to go by what the law said rather than by what he wished it had said. |
|
March 15, 2019, 11:53 AM | #18 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,818
|
Lets be clear about what's real, and not what a sound-byte headline implies.
The CT high court did NOT say Remington was at fault. If I'm reading this right, they DID DISMISS several parts of the lawsuit against Rem. They are allowing part of the suit to continue, (in a 4-3 decision) saying THAT PART (the claim about Rem's marketing) does not met their standard for arbitrary dismissal. Get that? They aren't saying the claim is valid, or that its right to sue Remington, ALL they are saying is that the claim may have its day in court. The press will make it sound like Remington IS at fault, because they are being sued. This is not what the CT court said. Essentially what they said was that the argument over Remington's responsibility, due to their marketing, meets the legal procedural standards to go to court, under a specific CT state law. And that the other claims about Remington's responsibility in that same suit, do not meet the legal requirements, and are dismissed. if I've got it wrong, please, enlighten me...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
March 15, 2019, 11:54 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Maybe so 44AMP, but the can of worms is way more open.
And hello Connecticut firearm and other companies. "Wrongful marketing" just made us millionaires because your marketing didn't meet our expectations. This can of worms does provide new opportunities for all of us: With the deadeye accuracy implied in their Colt ad, the next time your Colt doesn't put 5 rounds through the same hole at 1,000 yards, you're gonna sue. (And Remington, Wildey, Standard, Mossberg, Sturm Ruger, Wilson and Charter Arms). Guess who's moving out soon. The next time Synchrony Financial makes a mistake on a credit card bill, you're going to sue for wrongful marketing. In Connecticut. The next time my Black and Decker drill doesn't go through the wood as quick and smoothly as the advertisement, you're gonna sue. In Connecticut. The next time Priceline doesn't give the absolutely lowest price, you're going to sue their holding company. In Connecticut. (Here are 2 really easy ones) The next time Frontier Communications has an outage, we're all gonna sue. The next time Charter Communications cable doesn't provide a full (and marketed) 100Mbits up and down, same thing, we're all gonna sue. In Connecticut. The next time United Rental's backhoe doesn't slice through hard rock like a hot knife through butter, sue. In Connecticut. The next time Facebook ads for Connecticut aren't perfectly accurate, you're gonna sue them through their remote workers in Bridgeport. In Connecticut. Etc, etc, etc. All of these are based (or with facilities/ employees) in Connecticut. In all seriousness, this can't stand, the businesses in that state (gunners and not) just got put at serious risks for whatever someone else thinks they saw, heard, imagined, hallucinated or wanted from a product ad. Or, maybe it's the FBI in Connecticut in court for "wrongful marketing" when their leadership states they are "the finest Law Enforcement agency in the world", based on their canned "marketing statements" shadowed by recent testimony of fired officials? One way or the other, the unforseen consequences are going to backfire on the state.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
March 15, 2019, 02:47 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
If Colt advertised a model as capable of a 1 MOA group with Winchester 62gr ammunition, but the one you bought couldn't, you'd have a valid consumer beef in part because you are the consumer. Congress intended that consumers still have recourse when they are deceived or sold shoddy goods. That's the nature of the exception in the PLCAA allowing state consumer actions against arms manufacturers. The parties suing in CT aren't consumers, but people injured by the intervening criminal act of a third party bringing exactly the kind of claim prohibited by the PLCAA.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
March 15, 2019, 03:27 PM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
There's also the fact that, technically, the shooter was a "consumer" within the context of the Connecticut law because he didn't buy the gun, his mother did. And he killed her to get at it. Of course, if the trial really goes down that rabbit hole, it will probably come out that the mother bought it for him because that was the gun he wanted, and that he had access to it at any time because the mother allowed him to have access to wherever the firearms were stored. |
|
March 15, 2019, 03:33 PM | #22 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
The most annoying part of this is, they've already tried this and failed.
The lead attorney, Koskoff, represented the Brady Center when they sued Lucky Gunner in 2017. He did so "on behalf" of Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, who were left holding the bag for over $100,000 in legal fees when Lucky Gunner prevailed. I'm shocked he has the audacity to be trying this again. There need to be repercussions.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
March 15, 2019, 05:41 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
I guess we’ll have to disagree, but I’m ‘only’ 68. I’d say legislation from the bench has been a problem for both sides of the ‘isle’, roughly equally. Both are bad, regardless of whether you agree with their ruling or not.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|
March 16, 2019, 12:08 AM | #24 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
March 16, 2019, 02:20 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Why not Steve? They’re all companies located in or with facilities/ personnel in the same state now claiming “wrongful marketing” as a tort.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
|
|