Supreme Court Opens Door to Sandy
Hook Families’ Suit Against Gun Maker
Breitbart Politics,
by
AWR Hawkins
Original Article
Posted By: Hazymac,
11/12/2019 1:21:12 PM
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) cleared the way Tuesday for Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit against gun maker Remington to proceed.
SCOTUS did this by refusing to hear Remington’s appeal of a March Connecticut Supreme Ruling that allowed the lawsuit to stand.
The Stamford Advocate reports 10 Sandy Hook families filed the suit despite the existence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; “a federal law that shields the industry from most liability when its firearms are criminally misused.” Josh Koskoff, the lead attorney for the 10 families, reacted to SCOTUS by saying:
The families are grateful that the Supreme Court upheld
Reply 1 - Posted by:
curious1 11/12/2019 1:26:51 PM (No. 233089)
No, it didn't. The case hasn't yet gone to trial. Afterwards, and if the appeals courts are stupid too, then it no doubt will. The manufacturer is protected by federal law, and the local CT judge who doesn't throw the case out needs to be removed from the bench. If such were allowed, then every manufacturer of legal goods (autos, alcohol, etc) would be at risk.
23 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
earlybird 11/12/2019 1:27:46 PM (No. 233090)
This is wrong. The weapon, lawfully purchased, did not shoot on its own. It was used by a human being, who was the guilty party.
20 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 11/12/2019 1:42:00 PM (No. 233109)
Why not allow grieving families to sue Boeing for the 9-11 attacks too? Or the people who run down by rabid-islamo-terrorists in vans to sue Ford, etc.? This is absolute insanity.
20 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
HotRod 11/12/2019 1:52:35 PM (No. 233122)
This is what happens when the country is run by lawyers.
24 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
JunkYardDog 11/12/2019 3:48:27 PM (No. 233242)
Not a good decision by SCOTUS. BY extension, every obese person inthe US can now sue Williams & Sonoma for selling knives & forks that caused their obesity...or stove manufacturers. Blaming inanimate objects for crimes committed by people is absolutely retarded.
13 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DVC 11/12/2019 4:17:51 PM (No. 233271)
This is the Conn Supreme Court....perfect name. The law is clear, and the court is totally partisan, biased and full of beans on this issue.
I went out this morning and read the language of the statute. It is absolutely clear that the legislation is intended to halt ALL lawsuits against gun makers which have anything to do with misuse of a legal item by a criminal "or third party". The Conn SC clearly has 4 "justices" on it who are comfortable with disregarding that law.
8 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
RCFLyer98 11/12/2019 4:19:24 PM (No. 233273)
Would this ever open up a can of worms. Can I sue Chevrolet for a relative being killed in a Chevy? Could I sue Cessna for a relative being killed in a 172? How about Kelloggs' because relative was eating Corn Flakes while succumbing to a heart attack?
5 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
winnie1 11/12/2019 4:39:17 PM (No. 233306)
This is getting out of hand. If you purchase a rifle is someone from Remington supposed to follow you around to make sure you don't commit a crime?
4 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
udanja99 11/12/2019 4:46:45 PM (No. 233320)
So, if I trip and fall and my head hits a curb resulting in brain damage, do I get to sue the company that made my shoes?
5 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Philipsonh 11/12/2019 6:33:22 PM (No. 233378)
To reply #10 - of course not, you sue the cement manufacturer whose product created the the curb. You should know that.
4 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 11/12/2019 6:42:17 PM (No. 233382)
#7, yes, all those lawsuits can be filed today. That is because there is NOT a specific law preventing them from going forward like there is for crimes committed with firearms.
And most of the reason that the small aircraft industry is moribund is that the lawsuits for a 20-40 year old product, misused by the pilot, ran the prices so high that nobody can afford them any more. The lowest cost new aircraft these days is well north of $200K, and a normal 4 seater like a Cessna 182 costs over $500K these days, and with good options add another $100K.
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
earlybird 11/12/2019 7:03:27 PM (No. 233403)
SCOTIS refused to hear Remington’s appeal of a March Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that allowed the lawsuit against Remington to stand. The case can go forward.
I was mistaken in my reply #2. I had forgotten (or possibly never read) that the particular AR-15 used in the crime was stolen. We had read that Adam Lanza’s mother had legally purchased firearms and kept them locked up in their home.
Nonetheless, I don’t understand why Remington would be responsible...
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
earlybird 11/12/2019 7:03:53 PM (No. 233404)
Correction: SCOTUS
0 people like this.
No, Earlybird....Remington is not responsible.
Otis Elevator could be sued for a sudden drop and catch - that, though no one hurt, caused such "trauma" to those inside. It jumps about 5 feet and recovers. It happens.
So unless you can go forward w/a suit based on your surviving an elevator drop on say, 9/11, which NO ONE DID SURVIVE.....you have nothing. Otis failed d/t external circumstances and did not warrant their products - the actual elevator cars - to withstand terror attacks in form of fire/cut off from impact of jets and jet fuel.
Remington firearm is an object/brand.. How do you defend against ANY person or entity using whatever named firearm from use illegally? Let's lock up everyone in America with any kind of firearm on the pretense that they may or IT may be misused by ANYONE in the future against any group or individual
This is ridiculous on its face.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Hazymac"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)