CT Supreme Court-Remington CAN be sued for Sandy Hook - Page 2

steve4102 · March 16, 2019, 08:00 AM

Key words,

Encourage violent and criminal behavior.

Call me crazy, but I don't think, not getting the group size as advertised, is encouraging Criminal Behavior.

steve4102 · March 16, 2019, 08:02 AM

Rick, is that the actual ad the plaintiff is referring to or are there others?

TXAZ · March 16, 2019, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve4102

Key words,

Encourage violent and criminal behavior.

Call me crazy, but I don't think, not getting the group size as advertised, is encouraging Criminal Behavior.

And that’s clearly not the case in the hypothetical examples provided.

steve4102 · March 16, 2019, 08:35 AM

Quote:

And that’s clearly not the case in the hypothetical examples provided.

Exactly.

natman · March 16, 2019, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve4102

Rick, is that the actual ad the plaintiff is referring to or are there others?

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v0/1000x-1.jpg

natman · March 16, 2019, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve4102

Rick, is that the actual ad the plaintiff is referring to or are there others?

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v0/1000x-1.jpg

This one's getting a lot of play. It's more aggressive than the "Man Card" ad.

Still a stretch and the entire suit is still flat out prohibited by PLCAA.

TomNJVA · March 16, 2019, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natman

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v0/1000x-1.jpg

I must be missing something in that ad. No where do I see "The perfect weapon for mowing down masses of innocent people".

**Tom Servo** · March 16, 2019, 02:07 PM

Quote:

No where do I see "The perfect weapon for mowing down masses of innocent people"

It's a rifle designed for sale to the military, so it fits the "weapons of war have no place on our streets" meme. But, as you said, one heck of a stretch.

**Aguila Blanca** · March 16, 2019, 04:20 PM

Is that even the rifle that was used at Sandy Hook? Connecticut had an AWB in place at the time -- whatever he had could not have had a flash hider, bayonet lug, or telescoping stock. My fuzzy recollection of photos at the time of the incident is that I was looking at a fairly commonplace M4gery sort of rifle, with a telescoping-looking stock that was probably glued or pinned to to be Connecticut compliant.

rickyrick · March 17, 2019, 12:17 AM

There’s a picture of an officer holding up the gun. It had a fixed stock, no flash hider or bayonet lug. Otherwise looked like a cheap AR15. Had scary appendages still front sight post and all

rickyrick · March 17, 2019, 12:23 AM

Tried to post the pic before and it was mega huge

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

steve4102 · March 17, 2019, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Specifically, they allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.

I have been searching for the above in the Connecticut unfair trade practices act.

To big and to much legalese for me. Can you guys break it down and show where this "encourage violent and criminal" behavior in advertising is a violation of CT law?

steve4102 · March 17, 2019, 06:12 AM

Quote:

There’s a picture of an officer holding up the gun. It had a fixed stock, no flash hider or bayonet lug. Otherwise looked like a cheap AR15. Had scary appendages still front sight post and all

I don't believe that AR in the photo is a Bushmaster.
Looks exactly like my Colt HBAR Match.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/801338500

steve4102 · March 17, 2019, 06:16 AM

I just did a search of Bushmaster AR's and could not find a single BM with that type of fixed stock, straight plain barrel and no flash hider.

I do not believe that firearm is a BM, it's a Colt.

1stmar · March 17, 2019, 06:35 AM

Wouldnt they have to prove that the shooter actually read/saw this marketing in order to be influenced by it?

steve4102 · March 17, 2019, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Wouldnt they have to prove that the shooter actually read/saw this marketing in order to be influenced by it?

..also he did not purchase the firearms, he sold them and killed the owner.

rickyrick · March 17, 2019, 11:51 AM

Quote:

not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.

I’ve seen that the most in advertisements of movies, tv and video games. Not talking about the movies and such themselves, but the advertisements of those. Can the entertainment industry even promote thier products in Connecticut or are they exempt from those rules too?

I still play video games, not knocking them in any way.

**Aguila Blanca** · March 17, 2019, 01:55 PM

What's going to be interesting is Remington's next move. Will they go to trial and do their best to shoot down the plaintiffs' arguments in Connecticut superior court, and then appeal to the U.S. courts if they lose -- or will Remington go immediately to the federal courts to try to have the lawsuit thrown out under the federal law protecting lawful trade in firearms?

Gary L. Griffiths · May 27, 2019, 12:29 PM

Looks like Remington is going the Federal route.....

https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/20....20190404111219

**Aguila Blanca** · May 27, 2019, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Looks like Remington is going the Federal route.....

https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/20....20190404111219

404 Page Not Found

mehavey · May 27, 2019, 01:13 PM

Try
https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/201...ok-litigation/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/03/polit...tay/index.html

62coltnavy · August 3, 2019, 02:03 AM

Today Remington filed for cert with he US Supreme Court.

There are horrendous legal defects in the claim being asserted, specifically proof that Lanza saw any ads, was influenced by any ads, or was the purchaser of the firearm in question. And those questions probably cannot be answered because he is dead, as is the original purchaser. Plus there is the fact that he stole the firearm after killing his mother. I really do not see how Plaitniffs can establish causation, but I don't think that that was necessarily the purpose of the litigation. Rather, I think that its real purpose is to establish a legal theory that can be exploited in other cases down the road, i.e., establish as a legal principle an exception to the federal immunity statute. Unless SCOTUS grants cert and overturns the decision, they will have succeeded.

rickyrick · November 12, 2019, 01:19 PM

Surprised that a new thread on this hasn’t popped up, but apparently the scotus has now allowed Remington to be sued by Sandy hook survivors.

zukiphile · November 12, 2019, 02:08 PM

That the suit against Remington can proceed is not a comment on its merits, but a conclusion of the lower court that the part of the complaint that survives falls within the PLCAA exception.

Quote:

Respondents’ complaint alleges that petitioners violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which confers a right of action for personal-injury damages on any person harmed by “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 42-110b(a); see Pet. App. 62a. The complaint alleges that petitioners’ unlawful marketing of the XM15-E2S contributed to the deaths of the Sandy Hook victims by inspiring the shooter’s conduct and by causing him to select a particularly deadly weapon for his attack. Compl. ¶¶ 174-175, 219.

I still think the underlying claim is very difficult to support factually and it isn't at all clear to me that the marketing in question is unlawful under the state code. I have a link to the docket below. If I weren't busy, I'd comb through it to see whether the regulation of speech implicit in the respondent's claims is a problem mentioned in any of the amicus briefs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/19-168.html

**44 AMP** · November 13, 2019, 12:28 AM

I think it important for those of us not well schooled in the legalese used to understand that the actual situation is not what is implied in various headlines or by certain talking heads in the media.

If I'm understating this correctly (and please, do correct me if, and where I'm wrong) the accuser is saying Rem ads broke CN law, AND that contributed to the Sandy Hook murders, so Remington should pay us....

Remington asked the High Court to toss the suit, because of the Protection of legal commerce of arms act (PLCAA) and the High Court has now allowed the lawsuit against Rem to go to court.

AND THAT'S ALL

at this point.

All the SCOTUS has, in effect, done is tell the plaintiffs that they dotted all the needed "i"s and crossed the needed "t"s and may go to their court and make their argument.

Their exact argument as to why, and for what Remington is liable, has not yet been made, so discussion of details about proving or disproving anything at this point are premature.

Right now, the only actual facts involved are the ones about the murders, directly, and those are that the murderer was not the legal owner of the gun he used (which was his mother, and one of the people he murdered). This is not in dispute. Since he murdered the legal owner, I think it is correct to consider the gun stolen.

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?

May 27, 2019, 12:29 PM	#44
Gary L. Griffiths Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2000 Location: AZ, WA Posts: 1,466	Looks like Remington is going the Federal route..... https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/20....20190404111219 __________________ Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

November 13, 2019, 12:28 AM	#50
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,812	I think it important for those of us not well schooled in the legalese used to understand that the actual situation is not what is implied in various headlines or by certain talking heads in the media. If I'm understating this correctly (and please, do correct me if, and where I'm wrong) the accuser is saying Rem ads broke CN law, AND that contributed to the Sandy Hook murders, so Remington should pay us.... Remington asked the High Court to toss the suit, because of the Protection of legal commerce of arms act (PLCAA) and the High Court has now allowed the lawsuit against Rem to go to court. AND THAT'S ALL at this point. All the SCOTUS has, in effect, done is tell the plaintiffs that they dotted all the needed "i"s and crossed the needed "t"s and may go to their court and make their argument. Their exact argument as to why, and for what Remington is liable, has not yet been made, so discussion of details about proving or disproving anything at this point are premature. Right now, the only actual facts involved are the ones about the murders, directly, and those are that the murderer was not the legal owner of the gun he used (which was his mother, and one of the people he murdered). This is not in dispute. Since he murdered the legal owner, I think it is correct to consider the gun stolen. 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? __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

March 16, 2019, 08:00 AM	#26
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,952	Key words, Encourage violent and criminal behavior. Call me crazy, but I don't think, not getting the group size as advertised, is encouraging Criminal Behavior.

March 16, 2019, 08:02 AM	#27
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,952	Rick, is that the actual ad the plaintiff is referring to or are there others?

March 16, 2019, 04:20 PM	#34
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	Is that even the rifle that was used at Sandy Hook? Connecticut had an AWB in place at the time -- whatever he had could not have had a flash hider, bayonet lug, or telescoping stock. My fuzzy recollection of photos at the time of the incident is that I was looking at a fairly commonplace M4gery sort of rifle, with a telescoping-looking stock that was probably glued or pinned to to be Connecticut compliant.

March 17, 2019, 12:17 AM	#35
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	There’s a picture of an officer holding up the gun. It had a fixed stock, no flash hider or bayonet lug. Otherwise looked like a cheap AR15. Had scary appendages still front sight post and all

March 17, 2019, 12:23 AM	#36
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	Tried to post the pic before and it was mega huge Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

March 17, 2019, 06:16 AM	#39
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,952	I just did a search of Bushmaster AR's and could not find a single BM with that type of fixed stock, straight plain barrel and no flash hider. I do not believe that firearm is a BM, it's a Colt.

March 17, 2019, 06:35 AM	#40
1stmar Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2012 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,378	Wouldnt they have to prove that the shooter actually read/saw this marketing in order to be influenced by it?

March 17, 2019, 01:55 PM	#43
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	What's going to be interesting is Remington's next move. Will they go to trial and do their best to shoot down the plaintiffs' arguments in Connecticut superior court, and then appeal to the U.S. courts if they lose -- or will Remington go immediately to the federal courts to try to have the lawsuit thrown out under the federal law protecting lawful trade in firearms?

May 27, 2019, 01:13 PM	#46
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,883	Try https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/201...ok-litigation/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/03/polit...tay/index.html

August 3, 2019, 02:03 AM	#47
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	Today Remington filed for cert with he US Supreme Court. There are horrendous legal defects in the claim being asserted, specifically proof that Lanza saw any ads, was influenced by any ads, or was the purchaser of the firearm in question. And those questions probably cannot be answered because he is dead, as is the original purchaser. Plus there is the fact that he stole the firearm after killing his mother. I really do not see how Plaitniffs can establish causation, but I don't think that that was necessarily the purpose of the litigation. Rather, I think that its real purpose is to establish a legal theory that can be exploited in other cases down the road, i.e., establish as a legal principle an exception to the federal immunity statute. Unless SCOTUS grants cert and overturns the decision, they will have succeeded.

November 12, 2019, 01:19 PM	#48
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	Surprised that a new thread on this hasn’t popped up, but apparently the scotus has now allowed Remington to be sued by Sandy hook survivors.