Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#1 barryware

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,221 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 14

Posted 14 March 2019 - 10:48 AM

Not sure where this should go..

http://www.msn.com/e...LpA1?li=BBnb7Kz

"HARTFORD, Conn. A divided Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

Justices issued a 4-3 ruling that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.

Remington has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can't be sued under the federal law."

Really???

You just can't make this stuff up..  :headbang1:

Edited by mauserme, 02 August 2019 - 08:58 PM.
Added "Soto v. Bushmaster" to Title

“I sometimes wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it.” – Mark Twain


#2 Windchaser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 14

Posted 14 March 2019 - 10:54 AM

Total BS. Will they allow auto maker to be sued as well? How about knife makers? Pool makers?

#3 Archondan

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 17

Posted 14 March 2019 - 11:25 AM

I was just thinking the same thing. So can automakers be sued for the damages a drunk drive does? This opens the doors to sue a company for misuse of any item. It's unbelievable they will do anything but blame the individual  


Edited by Archondan, 14 March 2019 - 11:26 AM.


#4 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,503 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 14 March 2019 - 11:35 AM

This is a bad ruling, and sets a horrible precedent.



#5 POAT54

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,557 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 14 March 2019 - 11:50 AM

Looking for a lawyer to sue the makers of flatware. They have caused a great surplus of myself and family members.


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#6 Teufel Hunden

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 14

Posted 14 March 2019 - 12:03 PM

So the state court has decided that it may ignore the federal law that has been in place for approaching 14 years - the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? Settled law that will eventually end up in the federal system and get smacked down. The plaintiffs can not prevail in this case, the plaintiffs lawyers are the only ones benefiting. This is clearly interstate commerce and under the sole purview of the US Congress to regulate.

#7 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,574 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 14 March 2019 - 01:49 PM

Looking for a lawyer to sue the makers of flatware. They have caused a great surplus of myself and family members.

 

We should also sue all the companies that "process" food and put too much sugar/salt/fat in their processed foods.  That will include Kraft, Oscar Meyer, Kellogg's, Post, etc.

 

:pinch:  :no:


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#8 RS1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 19

Posted 14 March 2019 - 02:22 PM

So the state court has decided that it may ignore the federal law that has been in place for approaching 14 years - the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? Settled law that will eventually end up in the federal system and get smacked down. The plaintiffs can not prevail in this case, the plaintiffs lawyers are the only ones benefiting. This is clearly interstate commerce and under the sole purview of the US Congress to regulate.

The state Court ruled that the state UTPA is not obviated by the PLCCA. They view it as a marketing/advertising issue, not an arms liability one. And if Bushmaster promoted criminal behavior in their advertising and marketing, fine. If they didn't, the plaintiffs have nothing.

A handy summary of the opinion:

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."

https://www.npr.org/...to-move-forward

It has less to do with guns than advertising. Agree that the only winners are, once again, the attorneys.

Edited by RS1, 14 March 2019 - 02:25 PM.


#9 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 14 March 2019 - 02:56 PM

No mention of what specific ad promoted and/or encouraged the violent, criminal behavior. Fail.   All this liberal court is doing, is allowing a witch hunt to search for anything to support their argument.  A complete farce.



#10 RS1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 19

Posted 14 March 2019 - 03:01 PM

No mention of what specific ad promoted and/or encouraged the violent, criminal behavior. Fail.   

Because this wasn't a final decision on the suit, it was a decision on whether the suit could proceed under law.

All this liberal court is doing, is allowing a witch hunt to search for anything to support their argument.  A complete farce.

It was a 4-3 decision. I don't like the decision but calling it a witch hunt is a stretch. It's in the grand tradition of US tort. The real meat will be the actual lawsuit. Not this decision.

Edited by RS1, 14 March 2019 - 03:05 PM.


#11 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,757 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 14 March 2019 - 03:18 PM

Shouldn't they be suing the bank that gave Remington the loan to make them? 


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#12 RECarry

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,454 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 14 March 2019 - 04:22 PM

By this logic, can Big Pharma can be sued whenever whack jobs on psych meds shoot people in Gun Free Zones?

 

What about the makers of Gun Free Zone window decals that are an open invitation to cowards looking for disarmed victims? And the bureaucrats that encourage (market) them?


Edited by RECarry, 14 March 2019 - 04:23 PM.

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

#13 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 14 March 2019 - 04:42 PM

Regardless of it going forward, the plaintiffs will have to prove that Remington engaged in advertising of illegal criminal acts using their product to prevail, can't see that happening.

 

Calling the item dangerous and saying they marketed to 'young children' who factually can lawfully use the item isn't enough, they need to show they promoted criminal and illegal acts in their advertisements.


Edited by Flynn, 14 March 2019 - 04:45 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#14 biggun 1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 17

Posted 14 March 2019 - 05:21 PM

more proof that the liberal left has gone wacko.



#15 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,162 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 14 March 2019 - 05:30 PM

Another case for SCOTUS


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7
 
"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor
 
New Gunner Journal
 

#16 McCroskey

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,667 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 14 March 2019 - 05:49 PM

Moronic


“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#17 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,063 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 14 March 2019 - 06:19 PM

Another case for SCOTUS


I believe it can be petitioned directly to SCOTUS because there is no further appeal at the state level and the issue at hand involved a federal law covering the action.


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#18 DoYouFeelLucky

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,034 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 08

Posted 14 March 2019 - 07:59 PM

So all of the auto manufacturers advertisements showing illegal, reckless, and dangerous stunt driving are clearly illegal also. I wonder if the radio, TV, and other media are aware of the potential hit in revenue they would suffer?
Freedom has a cost, and a free society must always be vigilant and ready to defend themselves against those that would misuse those freedoms to harm others. You cannot legislate the protection of free people, they must turn to themselves to preserve and maintain their freedom. Copyright 2012 Niner8Zulu Consulting

#19 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 14 March 2019 - 08:10 PM

So all of the auto manufacturers advertisements showing illegal, reckless, and dangerous stunt driving are clearly illegal also. I wonder if the radio, TV, and other media are aware of the potential hit in revenue they would suffer?

Their argument being that the advertisement was geared toward the notion that a deadly device was needed to make you a real man. Your analogy misses in the fact that every reckless 'stunt' car commercial has disclaimers on it stating trained professionals, do not try this, etc..

 

A better analogy would be Old Spice deodorant. Everyone knows and remembers the not too past Old Spice commercials featuring the typical muscle man on the horse, the crazy fantasy commercials of the last few years. This commercial (or most of their other ad campaings in fact) was intentionally insinuating that women would be attracted to a macho man wearing Old Spice deodorant. So if a rapist wears Old Spice does that make Procter and Gamble liable for the rape?



#20 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,480 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 14 March 2019 - 08:27 PM

So all of the auto manufacturers advertisements showing illegal, reckless, and dangerous stunt driving are clearly illegal also. I wonder if the radio, TV, and other media are aware of the potential hit in revenue they would suffer?

They're protected by the microscopic disclaimer at the bottom that says, "Professional driver on a closed course. Do not attempt."
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Gun Owners of America - Annual Member
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year American Hero Member
** Second Amendment Foundation - Life Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

#21 Teufel Hunden

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 14

Posted 14 March 2019 - 08:50 PM

Here's the overwhelming problem with their argument. The shooter was not the purchaser of the weapon, so it doesn't matter what type of appeal they may have made to him in a commercial. The argument of appealing to "manly" characteristics falls apart because his mom purchased the rifle as the shooter was a prohibited person.

#22 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 14 March 2019 - 11:11 PM

 

No mention of what specific ad promoted and/or encouraged the violent, criminal behavior. Fail.   

Because this wasn't a final decision on the suit, it was a decision on whether the suit could proceed under law.

All this liberal court is doing, is allowing a witch hunt to search for anything to support their argument.  A complete farce.

It was a 4-3 decision. I don't like the decision but calling it a witch hunt is a stretch. It's in the grand tradition of US tort. The real meat will be the actual lawsuit. Not this decision.

 

 

RS1, I'm glad you were able to sort out that this was not a final decision. I don't think a single person on the planet confused that, but you missed MY point. If the plaintiff is going to be allowed to pursue a theory, you would think they should at least be required present an shred of evidence supporting the claim.  That is what I called a FAILED decision.

 

Furthermore, by allowing the case to move forward, the plaintiffs now are given fairly liberal access to internal documents in order to attempt to support their dubious claim.  Essentially allowing a Witch Hunt.  Only now in 2019 we don't burn them to a stake to force a confession to gather evidence. I trust I don't have to explain this further.

 

Please don't respond to my posts anymore. Thanks.


Edited by mrmagloo, 14 March 2019 - 11:23 PM.


#23 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,063 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 15 March 2019 - 06:04 AM


 


Only now in 2019 we don't burn them to a stake to force a confession to gather evidence.



We are getting closer to returning to this practice everyday.


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#24 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,045 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 15 March 2019 - 10:17 PM

Here's the overwhelming problem with their argument. The shooter was not the purchaser of the weapon, so it doesn't matter what type of appeal they may have made to him in a commercial. The argument of appealing to "manly" characteristics falls apart because his mom purchased the rifle as the shooter was a prohibited person.

 

That was my thought on this, as well. The person who purchased the weapon was the shooter's mother, yes? And she locked it up in a safe, only to be murdered by her son, her safe broken into despite her efforts to make sure they were secured, and then the shooter misusing the weapons most likely never having been influenced by any advertising for the firearms in any way.

 

This is going to end up like that case in the Aurora shooting where the plaintiffs are going to be on the hook for a counter-judgement against them for court costs, where the attorneys and whatever anti-firearm advocacy groups that encouraged them to file this frivolous suit will dump them and abandon any responsibility for the costs.

 

So, the families get victimized twice, once by the murderer and once by the blood-dancing anti-firearm opportunists taking advantage of their grief and misery.

 

Despicable.


Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 15 March 2019 - 10:17 PM.

"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
 

 
 
 
 


#25 springfield shooter

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 16

Posted 22 March 2019 - 03:11 PM

 

Here's the overwhelming problem with their argument. The shooter was not the purchaser of the weapon, so it doesn't matter what type of appeal they may have made to him in a commercial. The argument of appealing to "manly" characteristics falls apart because his mom purchased the rifle as the shooter was a prohibited person.

 

That was my thought on this, as well. The person who purchased the weapon was the shooter's mother, yes? And she locked it up in a safe, only to be murdered by her son, her safe broken into despite her efforts to make sure they were secured, and then the shooter misusing the weapons most likely never having been influenced by any advertising for the firearms in any way.

 

This is going to end up like that case in the Aurora shooting where the plaintiffs are going to be on the hook for a counter-judgement against them for court costs, where the attorneys and whatever anti-firearm advocacy groups that encouraged them to file this frivolous suit will dump them and abandon any responsibility for the costs.

 

So, the families get victimized twice, once by the murderer and once by the blood-dancing anti-firearm opportunists taking advantage of their grief and misery.

 

Despicable.

 

 

 

As despicable as it is, I'd counter-sue them before I paid for the fruit of their foolishness. Maybe someone will figure out that the gun-grabbers and ambulance chasers aren't their friends.

 

Or maybe the gun-grabbers and ambulance chasers will pay the freight.

 

Or more likely the moon is made of green cheese.


"I can't spare this man. He fights."  Abraham Lincoln


#26 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,084 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 March 2019 - 07:17 AM

This wasn't a decision on the merits of the case as a whole. It was to decide if it's a barred action (it is, they just found a reason to make it "not" barred). That is some REALLY convoluted language. Typical "start with a conclusion, use the body of the opinion to justify it." "Uhhh the advertising. They show soldiers...so people think you can shoot full auto...yep yep that's it!" Federal court still has jurisdiction over this and whatever the final decision, it will be appealed to SCOTUS. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#27 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,722 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 23 March 2019 - 07:31 AM

I was just thinking the same thing. So can automakers be sued for the damages a drunk drive does? This opens the doors to sue a company for misuse of any item. It's unbelievable they will do anything but blame the individual  

Environmentalist groups should be suing every automaker that isn't 100% electric.  For that matter even the electric ones are sending chemicals into the ozone during production.


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#28 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,084 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 March 2019 - 07:40 AM


I was just thinking the same thing. So can automakers be sued for the damages a drunk drive does? This opens the doors to sue a company for misuse of any item. It's unbelievable they will do anything but blame the individual  


Environmentalist groups should be suing every automaker that isn't 100% electric.  For that matter even the electric ones are sending chemicals into the ozone during production.

"The commercials show...." is the ENTIRE case. That's it. Since when did an ad in a magazine for a rifle make a REASONABLE person get a rifle then use it to shoot up a school? Ffs this is a complete joke and PLCAA barred. CT SC will be bench slapped by SCOTUS in a per curiam order vacating whatever judgement they reach (on de novo review).

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#29 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 23 March 2019 - 08:29 AM

Skinny - Glad to see you're back posting.

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#30 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,084 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 March 2019 - 08:58 AM

Skinny - Glad to see you're back posting.

Happy to be back. My other project (helping bust public corruption) is winding down so there will be quite a bit of information (and hopefully major arrests) going public. Soon. And having a special needs child is...exhausting.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 1 anonymous users