Jump to content

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


barryware

Recommended Posts

Not sure where this should go..

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-rules-gun-maker-can-be-sued-over-newtown-shooting/ar-BBULpA1?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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/2019/03/14/703439924/lawsuit-by-sandy-hook-victims-against-gun-manufacturer-allowed-to-move-forward

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...