Jump to content


Photo

Soto v. Bushmaster - Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#61 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 25 October 2019 - 03:54 PM

Every single day we stray further from being a nation of laws, towards being a nation of lawsuits.


I knew this country was going to ish when having NO TRESPASSING signs on your property no longer had any legal teeth to them, and someone could illegally trespass on your property, break a leg, sue you for it, AND WIN.


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


#62 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 25 October 2019 - 04:54 PM

They are ignoring the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" which is a federal law that says gun makers cannot be sued for the actions of criminals.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#63 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,093 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 25 October 2019 - 05:40 PM

Remington is being sued for the ads it ran, not for Lanza's actions. Whether Soto et al. actually have a case is another matter.

Edited by Euler, 25 October 2019 - 05:40 PM.

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.


#64 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 25 October 2019 - 08:12 PM

Remington is being sued for the ads it ran, not for Lanza's actions. Whether Soto et al. actually have a case is another matter.


Whatever they're being sued for, the goal is to make gun manufacturers go out of business.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#65 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,991 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 25 October 2019 - 10:12 PM

Remington is being sued for the ads it ran, not for Lanza's actions. Whether Soto et al. actually have a case is another matter.

So Remington is being sued for exercising their 1st amendment right by advertising a product for sale.  This case violates both the 1st amendment and "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"  since advertisements are necessary in lawful commerce.  This opens the door to sue alcohol companies for their advertisements because a drunk drivers choose their brands.  If a person dies from being overweight their children can sue all the food manufacturers for their advertising encouraging gluttons to eat themselves to death.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#66 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 26 October 2019 - 07:34 AM

Big tobacco and Johnson & Johnson and pharma . . . .



#67 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,129 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 28 October 2019 - 04:38 AM

 

Remington is being sued for the ads it ran, not for Lanza's actions. Whether Soto et al. actually have a case is another matter.

So Remington is being sued for exercising their 1st amendment right by advertising a product for sale.  This case violates both the 1st amendment and "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"  since advertisements are necessary in lawful commerce.  This opens the door to sue alcohol companies for their advertisements because a drunk drivers choose their brands.  If a person dies from being overweight their children can sue all the food manufacturers for their advertising encouraging gluttons to eat themselves to death.

 

 

That's how this always struck me, considering that the supposed "offense" was because the plaintiffs said that the advertising was what motivated Lanza to do what he did.

 

That is about as clear-cut a First Amendment case as you can possibly get.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#68 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,219 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 28 October 2019 - 05:32 AM

I don't see this case going much further, but the fact that it got this far is scary.

There is something wrong with the judges in our legal system if they can decide to allow a case like this to proceed.



#69 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,573 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 28 October 2019 - 06:29 AM

So, IF someone did not purchase a firearm for self defense purposes and ended up severely injured because they had no means of self defense, can an Anti group be sued because they “advertise” against gun ownership ??

Can Planned Parenthood be sued on behalf of millions of kids because they “advertise” their Abortion services ?
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#70 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,129 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 29 October 2019 - 10:07 AM

So, IF someone did not purchase a firearm for self defense purposes and ended up severely injured because they had no means of self defense, can an Anti group be sued because they “advertise” against gun ownership ??

Can Planned Parenthood be sued on behalf of millions of kids because they “advertise” their Abortion services ?

 

I believe that is exactly what that means.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#71 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,991 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 29 October 2019 - 06:06 PM

So, IF someone did not purchase a firearm for self defense purposes and ended up severely injured because they had no means of self defense, can an Anti group be sued because they “advertise” against gun ownership ??

Can Planned Parenthood be sued on behalf of millions of kids because they “advertise” their Abortion services ?

I suspect they could potentially be sued for conspiracy against rights which would be a tort lawsuit.  It would be funny if anti-gun groups get bankrupted 


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#72 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,991 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 29 October 2019 - 06:10 PM

Can Planned Parenthood be sued on behalf of millions of kids because they “advertise” their Abortion services ?

Perhaps lawmakers and other government officials could sue over the loss of future tax payers due to Planned Parenthood advertising abortion services.  I have read that Biden was denied communion due to his stance on abortion.


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#73 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,746 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 10:50 AM

SCOTUS rejected the appeal. Lawsuit moving forward. Flood gates are gonna be open......

#74 Ranger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 997 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 09

Posted 12 November 2019 - 11:07 AM

Wow!  Can't believe they rejected it...  Well...  I guess I can; but I didn't see how any pro-second amendment justices would.


Edited by Ranger, 12 November 2019 - 11:07 AM.


#75 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,129 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 12 November 2019 - 11:43 AM

SCOTUS rejected the appeal. Lawsuit moving forward. Flood gates are gonna be open......

 

Any published reason for the rejection, given that the PLCAA expressly forbids this kind of case?


Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 12 November 2019 - 11:43 AM.

"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#76 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,093 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 12 November 2019 - 12:23 PM

Any published reason for the rejection, given that the PLCAA expressly forbids this kind of case?


No reason is ever given when cert is denied (or even when granted). Denying cert does not mean the court agrees with the defendant (Soto). It means they've decided not to hear the case.

PLCAA only protects manufacturers from being liable for the manufacture of (defect-free) firearms. Soto is suing Remington for advertising it.
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.


#77 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 02:35 PM

Wow!  Can't believe they rejected it...  Well...  I guess I can; but I didn't see how any pro-second amendment justices would.


Loosing faith in SCOTUS too, they have become politically correct. The 1st amendment and 2nd amendment and a federal law are being violated but they don't care.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#78 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 02:37 PM

Any published reason for the rejection, given that the PLCAA expressly forbids this kind of case?

No reason is ever given when cert is denied (or even when granted). Denying cert does not mean the court agrees with the defendant (Soto). It means they've decided not to hear the case.PLCAA only protects manufacturers from being liable for the manufacture of (defect-free) firearms. Soto is suing Remington for advertising it.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products."

On what grounds are they suing when the rifle was bought by his mother?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#79 MagSlap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,551 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 03:08 PM

So...let me get this straight....

 

If I get kidnapped, I will sue...

Ford. For advertising 'fast cars' designed to get to where you want to be.

Shell Oil. For advertising their premium fuel that cleans and gives you more HP to get away..err..were you want to go.

WeatherTech Floor liners. Because they advertise the protection of your car's interior against 'everything'...which of course would include blood, hair, DNA that could link the kidnapper.

GoodYear tire.  For advertising with NASCAR and promoting fast movement of a vehicle that can be used in a getaway from a kidnapping.

Bob's Window Tinting and Burrito House.  For advertising the privacy window tints provide. Keeping the public's view out of your backseat..when...of course you can have your victim tied up...in plain view!!....but could be seen were it not for Bob and his blatant advertising of window tint.

Sylvania Automotive Light bulbs. For advertising superior visibility at night which allows the kidnapper an 'extended' degree and 'higher capacity' of allowable speed during the post sun-set hours for escape.

 

No..not purple.

I'm getting my lawyer on retainer with the above directives if I ever get 'disappeared'...



#80 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,093 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 12 November 2019 - 03:33 PM

Remember that only the preemptive dismissal of the suit was denied. Soto still has to argue her case, which doesn't mean she'll automatically win. No matter which side wins, expect appeals.
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.


#81 RECarry

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,463 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 03:44 PM

Good, Maybe this will set precedence for suing Obama and Michael, Hillarhoid, Sharptongue, Farrakhan, Maxine Walters and The View for blatantly and continuously promoting violence against whites, police officers, conservatives, pro-lifers, and so on.


A woman's "Right to Choose" the abortion issue starts with the words "No!", "Stop!", and "I am armed!".

#82 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,746 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 03:50 PM

Remember that only the preemptive dismissal of the suit was denied. Soto still has to argue her case, which doesn't mean she'll automatically win. No matter which side wins, expect appeals.


True.

#83 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,524 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 03:58 PM

 

 

Any published reason for the rejection, given that the PLCAA expressly forbids this kind of case?

No reason is ever given when cert is denied (or even when granted). Denying cert does not mean the court agrees with the defendant (Soto). It means they've decided not to hear the case.PLCAA only protects manufacturers from being liable for the manufacture of (defect-free) firearms. Soto is suing Remington for advertising it.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products."

On what grounds are they suing when the rifle was bought by his mother?

 

From CNBC:

 

Remington argued that its actions were protected under a 2005 law that shields gun makers from liability for crimes committed with their products. That law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, has come under new scrutiny amid a rise in mass shootings.

 

An exception in the law, provided in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit. They claim that Remington marketed the weapon “as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings.”


Edited by soundguy, 12 November 2019 - 04:00 PM.

Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#84 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,746 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:00 PM

Under this logic, next time a woman gets raped she can sue Victoria’s Secret for making her look too sexy for men

#85 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:11 PM

[quote name="soundguy" post="1237418" timestamp="1573595915"][quote name="357" post="1237401" timestamp="1573591020"]
[quote name="Euler" post="1237371" timestamp="1573583015"]
[quote name="ChicagoRonin70" post="1237359" timestamp="1573580612"]
Any published reason for the rejection, given that the PLCAA expressly forbids this kind of case?
[/quote]
No reason is ever given when cert is denied (or even when granted). Denying cert does not mean the court agrees with the defendant (Soto). It means they've decided not to hear the case.PLCAA only protects manufacturers from being liable for the manufacture of (defect-free) firearms. Soto is suing Remington for advertising it.[/quote]

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products."On what grounds are they suing when the rifle was bought by his mother?
[/quote]
 
From CNBC:
 
Remington argued that its actions were protected under a 2005 law that shields gun makers from liability for crimes committed with their products. That law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, has come under new scrutiny amid a rise in mass shootings.
 
An exception in the law, provided in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit. They claim that Remington marketed the weapon “as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings.”[/quote]

Where in tha AD does it say that? "as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings"

Is advertising guns illegal now, what law did they knowingly violate?

They have no standing and the suit should have been thrown out.

They are doing exactly what the federal law was trying to prevent. Remington was close to bankruptcy, they are making sure it goes bankrupt.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#86 yurimodin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 17

Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:16 PM

I thought manufacturer protection was the compromise for the Hughes Amendment.......sounds like someone is not holding up their end.



#87 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,524 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:17 PM

Where in tha AD does it say that? "as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings"

Is advertising guns illegal now, what law did they knowingly violate?
They have no standing and the suit should have been thrown out.
They are doing exactly what the federal law was trying to prevent. Remington was close to bankruptcy, they are making sure it goes bankrupt.

 

As one ad put it: “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”

 

Perhaps the lawsuit will fail in court...


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#88 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,524 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:21 PM

Under this logic, next time a woman gets raped she can sue Victoria’s Secret for making her look too sexy for men

 

Nope. Your logic doesn't follow...


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#89 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:03 PM

Where in tha AD does it say that? "as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings"
Is advertising guns illegal now, what law did they knowingly violate?
They have no standing and the suit should have been thrown out.
They are doing exactly what the federal law was trying to prevent. Remington was close to bankruptcy, they are making sure it goes bankrupt.

 
As one ad put it: “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”
 
Perhaps the lawsuit will fail in court...

Companies do that in ads all the time, they're saying they have a better product than the competition and nothing wrong with that.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#90 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:13 PM

Remington didn't sell it to the shooter anyway, so how can they sue? His mom bought it and didn't commit any crime or break any laws. They are suing for the legal actions of a criminal's family member too which sets more bad precedents.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users