It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alert: Case Win That May Potentially Bankrupt Gun Manufacturers With Liability Lawsuits

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I should go out and buy a bunch of new ammo and go target practicing with my old ammo, it is getting pretty old. I suppose it will cost me about five hundred bucks to rotate my stock. I haven't gone shooting for years now, it will be fun to go out and teach the daughters and granddaughters to shoot my guns.




posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
This is activism from the bench. The law is clear on this. This judge needs to be replaced by someone competent.
edit on 15 3 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Not quite. This is a pretty narrow ruling that's based in a technicality. There are a handful of exceptions listed in the PLCAA and one of them allows lawsuits against manufacturers who knowingly violate state or federal marketing laws to proceed. That's the contention here: Remington may have violated Connecticut's laws on unfair trade practices with how they marketed the rifle. The Connecticut Supreme Court specifically rejected the 'negligent entrustment' argument that Remington was liable on the basis that the AR-15 was too dangerous to be sold to the public and otherwise agreed that the PLCAA generally does protect firearm manufacturers from instances of criminal misuse of their products by others.

You can read the decision itself here:

www.jud.ct.gov...



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

As others have mentioned, it's just a tactic.

Those pursuing these litigation fully understand a direct assault on a Constitutional Amendment is not the way to go. Instead they will make the legal cost of producing anything to do with firearms prohibitive. They can do it at the local and state levels. If a few cases make it to SCOTUS and get struck down, oh well. There's lot's more where that came from.

You can see it elsewhere too. Don't like someone, a business, a law? Sue them out of existence. Sue their associates. Sue family members. Make the environment toxic. Make a municipality spend so much they simply give in and acquiesce.

For those using this tactic, there is little downside. Businesses are in business to make money. Municipalities have towns/counties/etc to run. Family members and friends have lives. Few have the time or resources to battle those who simply exist to deny their targets a moments peace until they give in.



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

OK then.
How deep down the stupid hole does the Left want to go?

In London, they are facing a knifing epidemic, so what next ???
- Cutlery manufacturers will be held responsible?
- How about the steelmakers that provided the steel to the cutlery makers ?
- How about the iron ore mines that supplied the steelmakers ?
- How about the miners that dug the iron ore ?
- How about the mothers who gave birth to the miners ?

There is just no end to leftists lunacy.

BLAME AND JAIL THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY DID THE CRIME !!!
Too obvious (and politically incorrect....disparate impact and all that junk.....)
edit on 15-3-2019 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   

The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.


How is a gun maker at fault when Lanza stole the weapon after killing his mother?

Guilt by disassociation?



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 06:45 PM
link   
A man farted as he walked by an ammunition factory last month.

The man is now being sued. An atom from his fart made it into the primer powder of a bullet used at a crime scene yesterday.

Analysts say that the atom provided some of the propulsive force that injured the victim. A "greater than zero" amount of force, is technically proof of a "greater than zero" liability. This case could set a monumental precedent in the US court system. Here is our respondent Roy Wood Jr, for more.



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
All this will do is federalize gun manufacturers and then what wil the states do? whine and moan thats what.



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.


How is a gun maker at fault when Lanza stole the weapon after killing his mother?

Guilt by disassociation?


They're not. The court specifically rejected the argument that Remington could be held liable on those grounds.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker
Haha, now people can sue Ford, chevy, Mainstays, uninball, pentec, or any manufacturer of anything that is used to murder someone. I guess Connecticut is really going to regret it when their manufacturers just leave and ignore the state for greener pastures.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Read about this case earlier. It is not as it is presented in the first post.

The supreme court threw out many parts of this lawsuit, anything that could have been unconstitutional. The only part they let through is the marketing to children/underage, which is illegal in the US. They allowed that part to continue, but nothing is decided yet. They only allowed the case to be heard.

Children are a protected group and exploiting them for financial gain is illegal. They can not be directly advertised to, marketed to or offered any credit lines. An auto or an appliance salesman can't even tell a price of a vehicle to someone underage or it can be construed as intent to sell.

Many will falsely try to present this is some war on guns, but the supreme court ruled fairly here. Marketing to children is a separate issue and should be heard.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: burdman30ott6


I'm all for loser pays. It helps stop the frivolous lawsuits.


And why isn't that already a law?



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
And why isn't that already a law?


Tort attorneys don't like it since it would put a serious damper on their business and have opposed this whenever they can.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

They are going to sue one manufacturers advertising techniques not actually sue them for manufacture or criminal use.

In particular was an advertisement about buying the bushmaster and "getting your man on" or some such toxic masculinity direction. Its creepy and really looks like it has more to do with attacking men than it has to do with reciprocity for victims families. I don't subscribe to Huff and Puff by the way but this really demonstrates things.



Huff Post


edit on 16-3-2019 by Logarock because: n



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

It is a way to sue the manufacturer trying to loophole current laws.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker


Case still has to go to court and then beyond. Cant believe they wont sue the makers of Captain Crunch if its all about the children.

By the way did this news story hit the day before New Zeeland?




top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join