Jump to content

Highland Park just announced a lawsuit against Smith and Wesson


TK 9mm
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just saw on news the lawyers are going after SWs marketing practices targeting unstable young men.

 

In all fairness I don't subscribe to any magazines and cannot recall ever seeing a SW ad as long as I can remember. Seems like more of the typically lawyer ambulance chasing BS.

 

Wonder if SW will cave like Remmington did after Sandy Hook.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had wondered the same thing in my post from July: 

 

It appears Smith and Wesson is the new boogeyman with their "M&P" branding for pistols and rifles. The gun grabbers have figured out what M&P stands for and is asking why these products are being sold to civilians when they are clearly meant for "military and police". I wonder if S&W could be held responsible for marketing this to civilians using a Sandy Hook type lawsuit? 

 

Looks like they are suing S&W, Buds Gun shop (seller of the rifle) and the Illinois FFL who did the transfer to the alleged shooter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/highland-park-mass-shooting-victims-new-lawsuits-build-sandy-hook-legal-theory-2022-09-28/

 

Highland Park mass shooting victims' new lawsuits build on Sandy Hook legal theory

 

By Alison Frankel

 

...

The new lawsuits offer a refined version of a legal theory that originally emerged in litigation by families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. As you probably recall, the Sandy Hook families and their counsel from the Koskoff firm persuaded the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2019 to allow them to move forward with claims that Remington Arms Co LLC breached state consumer protection laws by marketing its assault rifle to civilians bent on violence.

 

The Connecticut justices, in a landmark decision, held that Remington’s allegedly deceptive marketing fell outside of the scope of immunity that the U.S. Congress conferred on gunmakers and sellers in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That 2005 law, enacted to squelch a surge in private litigation against gun makers, broadly shields them from suits by shooting victims.

 

The firearms industry predicted after the Connecticut decision that the Sandy Hook precedent would spark a litigation onslaught. Remington said as much to the U.S. Supreme Court when it sought review of the Connecticut ruling. Remington’s amici warned the U.S. justices that the industry might be crushed by the cost of fending off similar lawsuits by shooting victims.

...

Firearms litigation expert Timothy Lytton of the College of Law at Georgia State University told me on Wednesday that plaintiffs' deceptive marketing theory will ultimately have to be tested at the U.S. Supreme Court because it relies on an interpretation of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

 

The key issue, Lytton said, is whether the text of the federal law – which permits civil suits against gunmakers and sellers that are alleged to have “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm]” – encompasses general state business practices laws or is limited to state laws that directly address gun sales.

 

“That remains an open question,” Lytton said. And even if Illinois courts agree with the Connecticut Supreme Court’s conclusion that the federal law does not preclude deceptive marketing claims against gunmakers, Lytton said, the Highland Park plaintiffs will still have to establish that they have standing to sue under consumer protection laws that are generally intended to be used by plaintiffs who purchased a falsely advertised product.

...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 6:49 PM, Rilo said:

Transferring a “assault weapon” to a highland park resident.

I think the shooter lived with his father in Highwood and probably used that address on his FOID. His mother lived in Highland Park which bans so called "assault weapons"  I don't think any reputable gun dealer either online or local FFL would sell/transfer a rifle to anyone who lives in a community who bans them. Buds Guns online site has clear guidance on what is restricted in Cook County and other cities/municipalities in Illinois. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 7:46 PM, South Side 27 said:

I think the shooter lived with his father in Highwood and probably used that address on his FOID. His mother lived in Highland Park which bans so called "assault weapons"  I don't think any reputable gun dealer either online or local FFL would sell/transfer a rifle to anyone who lives in a community who bans them. Buds Guns online site has clear guidance on what is restricted in Cook County and other cities/municipalities in Illinois. 

Apparently it’s everytown law with Weiss so there is going to be some deep pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 8:09 PM, mauserme said:

 

It isn't illegal to sell something Highland Park defines as an "assault weapon" to one of their residents.  It's against Highland Park code to possess it there, whether a resident or not.

 

 

 

 

Going to be hard pressed on that one, everyone knows they are banned there since 2013. Ignorance does not circumvent responsibility and we all know this was woeful stupidity. They even run training classes on CCL which also speaks to this, best of luck to them.

 

we all know they will be asked where the accused planned to store the weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 8:40 PM, mauserme said:

It isn't a matter of ignorance.  It's a matter of understanding that Highland Park ordinance doesn't apply anywhere outside of Highland Park.

 

As for everyone knowing it was woefully stupid, following the law without projecting it to areas where it has no application is not the least bit stupid.  

We will not agree on this but what they did was at the very least stupid, they are nailed on law of accountability and possibly aiding and abetting. Unless they can prove otherwise they sold a firearm which under most presumptions would be stored in highland park, without evidence to the contrary it will be difficult to avoid this for RDA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 9:00 PM, mauserme said:

So you believe that the FFL had a specific intent to facilitate the commission of multiple murders?

 

Missing the point, violation of highland park ordinance is a misdemeanor. RDA just had to help facilitate a crime to which they did. Very unlikely this will be ignored given the trial will be in lake county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 9:12 PM, mauserme said:

The problem with your argument is that there's no evidence Red Dot broke any laws.  Only the murder did.

 

They knowingly transferred the firearm to him, in a location with likely one of the most famous bans. Let’s see where they lead this but a small FFL the is incorporated and not a LLC fighting against Bloomberg, good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 9:20 PM, mauserme said:

Ah, so you're saying the transfer actually took place in Highland Park instead of Lake Villa, where the store is located.   I have not heard that before now.

 

 

That’s not what I said! Transferring the weapon and knowing it is going to a HP resident would be aiding and makes them liable. Do most ffls do it? Sure but there is always this risk. Same as many transfer melting point guns. Let’s see where is goes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 9:26 PM, Rilo said:

That’s not what I said! Transferring the weapon and knowing it is going to a HP resident would be aiding and makes them liable. Do most ffls do it? Sure but there is always this risk. Same as many transfer melting point guns. Let’s see where is goes

 

There is an inconsistency in stating definitively that the store is liable, then suggesting we see where it goes.  Also with the melting point analogy as that would be against state law that applies everywhere within Illinois.

 

I do agree that we should let the court decide this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The killer was not a Highland Park resident and was living in Highwood when he bought the rifle. It was legal for Buds to sell it and for Red Dot to do the transfer. 
See the Sun Times article dated July 9 2022

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/9/23201114/highland-park-parade-mass-shooting-robert-crimo-ethan-absler-denise-pesina-jeremy-cahnmann%3F_amp%3Dtrue

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 9:31 PM, mauserme said:

 

There is an inconsistency in stating definitively that the store is liable, then suggesting we see where it goes.  Also with the melting point analogy as that would be against state law that applies everywhere within Illinois.

 

I do agree that we should let the court decide this.

 

 

Seemingly they are going after what I stated.

 

259. Upon information and belief, despite knowing that the Shooter resided in a municipality that prohibited the possession of assault weapons, Red Dot Arms transferred the M&P rifle to the Shooter, thereby knowingly aiding and abetting the violation of the ordinances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 10:57 PM, South Side 27 said:

The killer was not a Highland Park resident and was living in Highwood when he bought the rifle. It was legal for Buds to sell it and for Red Dot to do the transfer. 
See the Sun Times article dated July 9 2022

 

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/9/23201114/highland-park-parade-mass-shooting-robert-crimo-ethan-absler-denise-pesina-jeremy-cahnmann

Sun-Times said:

...

In January 2020, the state police approved allowing Crimo III getting the FOID card.

 

The director of the state police says there was no basis, under the law, to deny him the card and no evidence Crimo posed a threat to the public.

 

The following month, February 2020, using the Highwood address of the home where he was then living, Crimo went to a Chicago-area gun store and bought the Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle that the police say was used in the Fourth of July massacre.

...

 

Unless the ban applies to Highwood, the case against Red Dot will fail on the facts. The process is the punishment, though.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 5:14 PM, TK 9mm said:

Just saw on news the lawyers are going after SWs marketing practices targeting unstable young men.

 

In all fairness I don't subscribe to any magazines and cannot recall ever seeing a SW ad as long as I can remember. Seems like more of the typically lawyer ambulance chasing BS.

 

Wonder if SW will cave like Remmington did after Sandy Hook.

 

 

I'm thinking they won't fold. I got the impression that Remington did because of their financial problems, whereas Smith and Wesson has every incentive to win this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 10:18 PM, Rilo said:

Seemingly they are going after what I stated.

 

259. Upon information and belief, despite knowing that the Shooter resided in a municipality that prohibited the possession of assault weapons, Red Dot Arms transferred the M&P rifle to the Shooter, thereby knowingly aiding and abetting the violation of the ordinances.

 

You've been stating they they broke a law, yet you cite a civil (not criminal) complaint.

 

As you and I have both said, let's give the court a chance to hear this suit before assuming an allegation is equal to a finding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 9:27 PM, G214me said:

Any mention of lawsuits against ISP for giving the killer a FOID ? didn't the killer have a history of run ins with law enforcement and that info never made it to the ISP ( or whatever ) and he was able to get a FOID ? Any lawyers chasing after that ?

 

And how Constitutional was it for Highland Park's foolish zealots to make the entire community a Gun Free Zone (aka target rich environment for cowardly murderers)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...