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.

 

Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit go forward

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
wow
this has NOTHING to do with 2A
"they" want you to think it does.......




posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Oraculi

I'm going to sue Dell Computers because I often type stupid things online.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
I still fail to see how the gun manufacturers can be held in anyway complicit.

The Supreme's are way off the mark here.


Especially with the way the gun finds were reported in the MSM from that day ?



www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12/11/2019 by stonerwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

If I recall correctly, they were stolen from his mother...or something of that nature? Stolen, anyway.




posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I seem to remember photos of guns in the trunk that they said were used , maybe they scrubbed that news ?


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12/11/2019 by stonerwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
This is like suing Ford and Anheuser-Busch for drunk drivers.

This is nonsense.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the general public. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.


It looks like there are two things at play here, the second being the claim of marketing to young men.

I suspect the second claim is why it survived the SCOTUS, not the first. The SCOTUS actually did not endorse the suit, they declined to review it. If they win the suit, I'd expect it to end up back in the Supreme Court.


The majority of justices in the state Supreme Court ruling, however, said it may be a “Herculean task” for the families to prove their case at trial.


I'd say it's unlikely they will win. It's too soon to be alarmed over this. This is years away from being over.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
This is like suing Ford and Anheuser-Busch for drunk drivers.

This is nonsense.

It is that exactly
Poor Remington Arms, no other gun manufacturer will get to use that ad campaign again.........

from the ops link



The case is being watched by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and gun manufacturers across the country because it has the potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other mass shootings to circumvent the federal law and sue the makers of firearms.

why just victims of "mass shooters"?
which definition of "mass shooters"? x number of kills? x number of injuries?
what about those who survived? they have trauma

what a can of worms......




The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the general public. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.

I would submit the gun itself is of no danger. But thats just my opinion.
I would like the specifics of this "marketing". I don't recall seeing such. I love RDR2 wonder if those guns will be attacked in a similar fashion?



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
I still fail to see how the gun manufacturers can be held in anyway complicit.

The Supreme's are way off the mark here.


Can we sue a car maker if it is used in a crime to kill someone, but then look at the drug industry that is taking a huge hit.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
First of all what is that holding up the gun ?

Secondly this is a ridiculous case of guns kill people not people kill people .

I hope the lower court rulings we’re just trying to save the plaintiffs humiliation .

It looks like your avatar pic lol



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555

The majority of justices in the state Supreme Court ruling, however, said it may be a “Herculean task” for the families to prove their case at trial.


I'd say it's unlikely they will win. It's too soon to be alarmed over this. This is years away from being over.


I was going to quote the same portion. It appears the Conservative Justices let this through because they have a feeling it will not lead to a guilty judgement.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
This is like suing Ford and Anheuser-Busch for drunk drivers.

This is nonsense.


Actually, Ford was sued over the Pinto. Seems the company figured it would cost more to correct a design flaw that made the car prone to explode from a ruptured gas tank in rear-end collisions than it would to settle with victims burned, or killed by those explosions.

So, this case seems to indicate that SCOTUS believes that a product designed, or “mis-designed”, as in the Pinto case, that results in otherwise avoidable deaths, can place its manufacturer in jeopardy.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

These are the core reasons behind the SCotUS not wanting to review the case. There was no case that claimed that a gun manufacturer was promoting sales to minors, but there is a precedence of nicotine companies doing that. Under that vein Remington can be held as guilty. This was the case that the SCotUS heard, Remington is claiming that they should be protected by the 2005 ruling, and the other side is claiming otherwise. The court shouldn't have even heard this case but it did, pushing it back to the lower courts so that a real case can be trialed is the best thing that can happen. Now the families wanting to sue Remington are going to have to provide evidence that Remington is in fact pushing their product on minors by colluding with game manufacturers. That is a case that is not going to go the way the families want since it's impossible to prove one way or the other.

If the SCotUS had ruled in favor of the gun manufacturer in this case, then think about how many other companies would be citing this case as to why they should be exempt form lawsuits due to possible negligent behaviors on their part. On the other hand by rejecting this case and forcing the original lawsuit through, the SCotUS is forcing plaintiffs in a lawsuit against any company to provide real evidence that the company should be held accountable for damages done with their product.

A long time ago I was told by my law professor that any ruling by the SCotUS should be viewed by the largest picture possible in order to understand the full impact of the ruling. It would never be a case of "He-Said/She-Said", but rather it would be "Individual Rights/Individual Protections". So to me this decision by the SCotUS is the right call. THis case should be heard in the lower courts then go up from there, since the hearing the case isn't really a Constitutional issue requiring the SCotUS to be involved in, the actual case is though.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: weirdguy

Lol

That was embarrassing .



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Can I sue the fork manufacture for making me fat? Seriously, I want to know.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
There are more per year people killed with hammers than ARs.

When can we start suing Estwing and Stanley?


As soon as they start marketing hammers the same way Remington did, and does. In their idiocy, they threw responsible and law-abiding gun owners under the bus. As long as other gun manufacturers don't lose their minds, any precedent will be meaningless.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheGreatWork
I wonder if the rifle had been a Colt or Bushmaster, how that would have flew, being the largest suppliers for the Police. Would the gov have allowed it's own weapons factory basically to be sued?


My first thought was the guy that had his house demolished by a SWAT team using military weapons to get a shoplifter. Sue the manufacturers that sold the guns to the police department as well as whoever supplied them the armored vehicle.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The emotional reactions in this thread are confusing as anyone who actually really read into it would realize the context portay something very different than what the OP has created and put forth for consumption.

*The OP is being somewhat disingenuous with the thread title.

It should read,

"The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3, Sandy Hook lawsuit could proceed for now..."

So let's break the SOURCE down to its basic facts, shall we? Let us correct the records and provide a foundation for our thoughts and ideas to walk and mingle upon.

So what?

- The *STATE Supreme Court said Tuesday that a survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can pursue their lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 26 people. (Sherman Collins et al)

What lawsuit?

- The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the general public. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. (Sherman Collins et al)

***In otherwords, the lawsuit is about Type of weapon sold and nefarious marketing campaigns to include Video Games.

If you thought this thread meant that any maker of weapons, who's products end up killing and in crimes, then they can, by extension, be sued and held liable as well, this is FALSE.

What does the opposition say?

- Opponents of the suit contend that gunman Adam Lanza alone is responsible for killing 20 first graders and six educators. He was 20 years old.
- Remington Arms, which argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes. (Sherman Collins et al)

So what happened?

- The Connecticut Supreme Court had earlier ruled 4-3 that the lawsuit could proceed for now, citing an exemption in the federal law. The decision overturned a ruling by a trial court judge who dismissed the lawsuit based on the 2005 federal law, named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Conclusion:

This was a push and attack by Democrat powers within the state, the article even cites the Dems and attempts before,

"Democratic lawmakers from Connecticut, including Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy and Rep. Jahana Hayes, said in a statement that the 2005 federal law needs to be repealed." (Shermans Collins et al)

However, the state surpreme court says that while the case may proceed based off those allegations, it would also be a "Herculean Task" to pull off a victory considering the circumstances.
Furthermore, the opposition is asking the US Supreme Court to intervene.

So, theres that folks.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Oraculi

People cannot let anything go. This was how many years ago?



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Really??? Wheres the stats on that one?




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join