Jump to content

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


barryware

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...