Politics Supreme Court will allow Sandy Hook families to move forward in suit against gunmaker Remington

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by SlyPokerDog, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    116,223
    Likes Received:
    114,265
    Trophy Points:
    115
    • The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will not hear a closely watched case against gunmaker Remington.
    • The company had warned that such a result could potentially increase the liability of firearm manufacturers to suits brought by victims of gun crimes.
    • The court’s action will allow the family members of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre to move forward with their lawsuit.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/supreme-court-sandy-hook-remington-guns.html
     
  2. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    90,156
    Likes Received:
    52,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    This is bullshit.
     
    MARIS61 likes this.
  3. calvin natt

    calvin natt Confeve

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2017
    Messages:
    7,520
    Likes Received:
    10,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland Suburb
    awesome
     
    Lanny likes this.
  4. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    19,824
    Likes Received:
    23,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
     
    SlyPokerDog likes this.
  5. Hobbesarable

    Hobbesarable Cartoon Character

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,773
    Likes Received:
    5,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This will be an interesting case to watch.
     
  6. Chris Craig

    Chris Craig (Blazersland) I'm Your Huckleberry Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    53,586
    Likes Received:
    54,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good for them
     
  7. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    90,156
    Likes Received:
    52,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    So I'm curious. Do you think someone should be able to file a lawsuit against a motorcycle company or a car company for making a car that can go 160+ mph even though there isn't a road in America that you can legally go 160+ mph? And when someone crashes and dies, or kills someone else, is the car/motorcycle company liable?
     
    MARIS61 likes this.
  8. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    40,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, the whole case hinges on whether or not Remington marketed their guns as human-killers? Does anyone have any idea what marketing materials the plaintiffs are pointing to?
     
  9. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    116,223
    Likes Received:
    114,265
    Trophy Points:
    115
    This article explains it.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/bushmaster-sandy-hook-liability/463245/

    Those tactics, never tested before under PLCAA, dominate the allegations spelled out in the plaintiffs’ complaint. It quotes several advertisements from a catalog aimed at civilian gun buyers that is adorned with action photos of camouflage-clad soldiers and police in body armor. One reads, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” Other images tout the rifle’s “military-proven performance” and call it “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

    With that type of marketing, the Sandy Hook families claim, “The Bushmaster Defendants attract buyers by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of their AR-15 rifles.” The complaint alleges that while the weapon is suitable for the military and for law enforcement—where it’s used for combat and limited police purposes—in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines.
     
  10. calvin natt

    calvin natt Confeve

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2017
    Messages:
    7,520
    Likes Received:
    10,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland Suburb
    To be honest, I really don’t give a fuck. Anything that in any way hurts anything or anyone with regards to guns I’m all for. I’m fucking tired of it. Like I give a shit about a gun maker?
     
  11. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    90,156
    Likes Received:
    52,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    But all guns are killing.... machines.
     
  12. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    90,156
    Likes Received:
    52,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Do you see what's happening in Hong Kong? Chile? Venezuela? Do you know why those people are being brutally suppressed? Because they have no means to defend themselves.
     
  13. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    116,223
    Likes Received:
    114,265
    Trophy Points:
    115
    So are all cars but they're not being marketed as that and this is what the lawsuit is about.
     
  14. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    90,156
    Likes Received:
    52,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    But cars aren't designed to kill things. Guns are. But it's just funny to me that they think that this is the reason for the shooting and not like..... mental illness or other actual issues that can cause people to lash out.
     
  15. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    116,223
    Likes Received:
    114,265
    Trophy Points:
    115
    "The pedestrian clearing abilities of our bumpers makes this car the fastest way to travel through today's challenging traffic conditions."
     
    PtldPlatypus likes this.
  16. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    40,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's finer than that though; it seems like their contention is "it's OK to market guns as wild-animal killers or home-invader killers, but if you market them to civilians as offensive weapons--using the military as the basis for your marketing--then you're inviting purchasers to use them in that manner."
     
    SlyPokerDog likes this.
  17. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    32,643
    Likes Received:
    22,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Indeed, good point! Maybe we shouldn't have so many killing machines. There aren't so many people who need killing.

    barfo
     
    riverman likes this.
  18. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    90,156
    Likes Received:
    52,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Yeah but.... it sounds like the marketing that they're talking about WAS marketed to the military or law enforcement. There are trade magazines and conventions for industry professionals. Are they saying that these companies should somehow prevent their marketing that isn't even targeted at people like Lanza from falling into public hands?

    Their contention is very obviously that the AR-15 shouldn't be available for public purchase, and the ultimate goal of this is to take down the gun industry. If one suit goes through, many can follow in its place. It's an end-run to kill the gun industry.

    Also I will add that no marketing made even a tiny bit of difference. Most people Lanza's age have played video games where the AR-15/M4 variant is a popular weapon. Pretty much any game that has NATO forces in it will have some form of AR-15/M4. That's all the advertising that anyone needs. So should we do away with all military or law enforcement video games as well?
     
  19. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    31,952
    Likes Received:
    40,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know that's the case. The article Sly quoted claims the materials in question were in a catalog targeted toward civilians. Not knowing the media in which they were located, I can't say with any degree of certainty if your contention is correct or if theirs is.
     
  20. riverman

    riverman Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    66,303
    Likes Received:
    64,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well in my lifetime cigarettes have killed more people in America than almost anything and I don't think mental illness is to blame as much as advertising and availability.....don't see any problem addressing weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a few seconds as a "red flag" in the gun world. And nobody is going to be defending themselves against the govt with their AR15....that's video gamer crap purely..giving Hong Kong residents AR 15s would not save them from govt control...that's sensationalized bs...China has nukes...they could level the fucking island if they wanted to.
     

Share This Page