Jump to content


Sandy Hook Remington case to go to SCOTUS?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2 replies to this topic

#1 steveTA84


  • Members
  • 8,300 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 August 2019 - 04:10 PM

I hope they take it.

Lawsuits against gun manufacturers were once the preferred response to almost any kind of shooting. Unlike any other product on the planet, gun makers were being held responsible for the unlawful acts committed by others. It was such a problem that Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The purpose was to protect these companies from malicious and punitive lawsuits that stem from acts outside of their control.

However, the law didnt stop them.

While most have been tossed out since the laws passage one, in particular, hasnt been. A court recently decided to ignore the law when it came to a lawsuit against Remington stemming from the horrible events at Sandy Hook.

Now, Remington is asking for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Edited by steveTA84, 02 August 2019 - 04:10 PM.

#2 Euler


  • Members
  • 2,883 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 02 August 2019 - 06:13 PM


The case is Soto v. Bushmaster.

Reuters via Yahoo!

The maker of the assault-style rifle used in the 2012 mass shooting at a Newton, Connecticut, school asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to overturn a court ruling that allowed families of the victims to sue the company over its marketing practices.
The gun maker argued that the lawsuit should never have been allowed to proceed because a 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, shields gun manufacturers in most cases from liability when the firearms they produce are used in crimes.
The filing was long expected. Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the family members, said Remington's filing made no new or unexpected arguments.
A lower-court judge in 2016 dismissed the case. In a 4-3 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court said while most of the lawsuit's claims could not proceed, Remington could still be sued over its marketing under Connecticut law.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.

#3 Bird76Mojo


  • Members
  • 1,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 02 August 2019 - 08:40 PM

This has to have a positive outcome for the firearms manufacturer. If it doesn't, it would open up the entire world to frivolous lawsuits.. 

Car manufacturers would be sued for people using their cars as weapons of terror..

Soldiers could slap lawsuits on cell phone manufacturers or egg timer manufacturers when they get blown up by IED's..

Someone decides to commit suicide by riding their bicycle off a cliff. The family sues the bicycle company..

Cut yourself with your pocketknife. Bubye Kershaw..

The correct ruling is easy to see here.

Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.