Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Nuisance Lawsuit Against Gun Makers May Continue

AP Photo

The Connecticut Supreme Court today over-ruled an appeals court, allowing a nuisance lawsuit against gun makers to go forward.  The suit claims gun makers had some responsibility for the Sandy Hook school massacre, and accordingly, should pay big bucks to the plaintiffs.

Previously, a Connecticut appeals court ruled that the suit, employing a “novel strategy” by a Connecticut personal injury law firm, fell squarely under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.  However, the Nutmeg State’s high court ruled that some aspects of the suit fell outside the PLCAA.

The New York Times couldn’t conceal their glee:

Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

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

The ruling allows the lawsuit brought by victims’ relatives to go to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications that they have fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing — and possibly damaging — glimpse into how the industry operates.

The court agreed with the lower court judge’s decision to dismiss claims that directly challenged the federal law shielding the gun companies from litigation, but found the case can move forward based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

Justices wrote in the majority opinion that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”…

The ruling validates the novel strategy lawyers for the victims’ families used as they sought to find a route around the vast protections in federal law that guard gun companies from litigation when their products are used to commit a crime.

So, it reads as though a big part of the “novel strategy” is to move forward with discovery and hope to find incriminating evidence within confidential internal communications by the gun maker’s executives.

If this case gets thrown out on appeal, the plaintiffs in this case may owe a bundle to the defendants to reimburse their legal bills.

Then there will be another story in the media.  This time about the people once victimized are now forced to pay those evil firearm manufacturers’ legal bills.

Do you recall this story from The Huffington Post?

We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer

by Lonnie and Sandy Phillips
We have been getting a lot of questions about our lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, the online company that sold ammunition to the man who murdered our daughter Jessica along with 11 others in an Aurora, Colorado, theater. Especially after the Rachel Maddow Show covered us twice, people ask us about the judge’s order that we pay Lucky Gunner’s attorneys’ fees, since our lawsuit was unsuccessful.

We brought our lawsuit because we thought it was outrageous that companies could sell a dangerous man an arsenal without getting any information about him, and without making any effort to see if he was a dangerous killer — which he was. When the killer had left a voicemail with a shooting range, the range operator knew that he was bad news and shouldn’t be given access to guns. But these companies set up their business so people just like this killer can arm themselves at the click of a mouse. We wanted to change that. And we still do.

Attorneys at Arnold and Porter and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence brought the lawsuit for us, pro bono. We knew the risks of bringing the case. We knew that Colorado and Congress have given special protection of the gun industry, and we knew that under Colorado law we could even be ordered to pay attorneys’ fees because of those special protections.

But we thought it was important to take a stand, to fight to prevent other families from suffering as we have. We did not seek any money in our case. We just wanted injunctive relief — to have these companies act reasonably when they sold dangerous materiel, like 100-round ammunition magazines, ammunition, body armor, and tear gas.

The judge dismissed our case because, he said, these online sellers had special immunity from the general duty to use reasonable care under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and a Colorado immunity law…

To make matters worse, the judge ordered that we pay $203,000. This is an outrageous amount, especially given that this case was decided after one single motion!

“We knew the risks in bringing this case.”  Yet they proceeded anyway in their quixotic quest (with help from their friends at the Brady Campaign) to bankrupt a company just doing business to the letter of the law.

Of course, the Brady Campaign didn’t make headlines by stepping up to satisfy that judgement against Lonnie and Sandy Phillips.  Instead, the Brady bunch were nowhere to be found.

How long will it take before a federal court rules, once again, that water really is wet and people can’t sue firearm manufacturers for the illegal misuse of their product?  Time will tell.

comments

  1. avatar David Deplorable says:

    Activist judges are gonna activist.

    1. avatar kevin says:

      In other news, Ferrari just limited all future engine development to three cylinders and no more than 47 whp. In a press release, Ferrari CEO Louis Camilleri stated: “We have decided that it is immoral and unscrupulous to market excessive Formula-1 grade engines to young, civilian men as vehicles that are ideal for racing.” He later stated, “nobody needs more than 47 whp” and “today is a great day for insects, pedestrians, and squirrels.”

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…“nobody needs more than 47 whp” and “today is a great day for insects, pedestrians, and squirrels.” ”

        Nicely done. Nicely done, indeed.

    2. avatar Sean says:

      While it’s a very sad situation, the gun manufacturor did nothing to make a nut go out and kill anyone. Cars are dangerous too, but no one sues Ford when a DUI crash kills someone. The law protects gun makers from these types of suits, and justifiably so. The lawyer for this family sees a big old pay day. The law is clear, and this case will be overturned. Liberal activist judges need to go.

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Yeah… If the circuit courts don’t throw this out, the SCotUS most certainly will.

    1. avatar Tiger says:

      This is a State court. Not Federal.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        This is a State court. Not Federal.

        The federal Protection In Lawful Commerce Of Arms act still applies.

        1. avatar QED says:

          And the chilling effect and public relations effect also still apply. this court case is a win for the anti’s since it ratchets up risk. A $500 million 1% risk is not trivial.

          than antis are more highly funded. Arnold and Porter is able to DEDUCT its pro bono expenses as a donation to charity, so this suit costs the anti groups nothing since the taxpayer is paying.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Since it is a federal law, the next level of appeal will be federal.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Count on it,end of virtue signaling,go back to start.

      3. avatar Sean says:

        And because of the supremacy clause, Federal law superseded state law here.

    2. avatar Qed says:

      The further this goes the more of a chilling effect which alone is a partial win for gun control groups.

      A company that does other business in addition to making and marketing AR pattern rifles to the public has to worry about potential liablity affecting other business. A store other than a 100% gun store will have to worry about selling them.

      In the USA effectively half our business regulation is not in code and legislation but in corporate FEAR of being sued. A successful sandy hook type suit would be hundreds of millions to billions in damages. They only ever have to get one. And moving risk of a successful suit from 0.3% to 0.5% would represent a huge increase in risk.

      Moreover it may well be four scotus justices right now would rule against Remington .

      And of course if the dems take the White House and senate (likely and quite possible) the law itself would be repealed.

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The suit claims gun makers had some responsibility for the Sandy Hook school massacre, and accordingly, should pay big bucks to the plaintiffs.

    Memory prod: the Sandy Hook school mass-murderer murdered his own mother in order to obtain her rifle which he then used to murder the children at the school. How on God’s green Earth is a firearm manufacturer somehow at fault in that scenario?

    Unless the rifle manufacturer encouraged people to murder their family members in order to obtain the deceased family members’ rifles, the rifle manufacturer has ZERO culpability for the actions of an evil and deranged mass-murderer.

    1. avatar Tiger says:

      Exactly. It’s like trying to sue Ford motor company because, a car thief saw a AD for a Mustang…….

      1. avatar WARFAB says:

        Speaking of Mustangs and sports cars, if this case succeeds you can bet you’re not going to be seeing any more ads or commercials depicting a sports care with smoking tires. The auto industry is suddenly going to be liable for wreckless driving deaths. Maybe video games like Need for Speed will be liable as well.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Maybe video games like Need for Speed will be liable as well.”

          1st Amendment, baby!

          (Now, we just need some respect for the 2nd as they have for the 1st. C’mon, Justice Thomas…)

        2. avatar Scott C says:

          That, or they start trying to sue a car manufacturer for a drunk driver. They should have know and done something to stop drunk people from using the car… where will it end? They’re going to go after any company with $$$.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “That, or they start trying to sue a car manufacturer for a drunk driver. They should have know and done something to stop drunk people from using the car…”

          You know it.

          Like, Congress mandating a breathalyzer ignition interlock on every new car. Blow in the tube if you wanna drive.

          Of course, that will be effectively rendered moot when self-driving cars finally show up. I’ve always said, the first buyers of self-driving cars will be the drunks wanting to go to the bar but not wanting to get nailed for DWI on the way home…

      2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Someone should send Ford and others a note about their (possible) future responsibility. Maybe they can contact their legislators about it. It’s all about the money. On both ends.

    2. avatar QED says:

      the rifle manufacturer has ZERO culpability for the actions of an evil and deranged mass-murderer.

      I agree but the Ct Supreme court does not agree with you and I. This his and future cases will be partisan votes in the state and federal courts, what you and I think does not matter. And even if the gun control advocates lose the case, they get substantial benefit

    3. avatar Ark says:

      I think the idea is that the manufacturer was at fault because they didn’t voluntarily fold up and go out of business ’cause guns r evil.

    4. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The legal system runs on precedents, and allowing a firearms manufacturer or vendor to be sued for complicity in an incident after selling legal products after the buyer passed background checks would set a very dangerous precedent.

      It would open other legal manufacturers and vendors to be sued for the misuse of their legal products. Definitely on the list would be vehicle makers, junk food companies, domestic chemical makers such as fuels and solvents, alcohol makers, consumer pharmaceuticals, fast food vendors, and so on.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        In this case it’s even more insane (and the liability implied more remote) than that…
        Perhaps one could blame ads for booze and fast cars for an accidental DUI death (I wouldn’t),
        Perhaps one could blame a company for marketing or even selling a dangerous maniac a gun…
        But this; the lawful owner and original purchaser was murdered by the maniac and the weapons stolen, then intentionally used in a criminal manner.

        This is more closely blaming Ford for marketing their truck as tough and powerful when such truck has been stolen from its rightful owner and used by a terrorist to intentionally run people over…just plain barking mad!

        Let’s hope the fishing goes nowhere, and the plaintiffs are forever saddled with crushing debt to pay the defendants legal bills per PLCAA.

        Let me proactively say it is entirely possible to feel sympathy for what has happened to someone while having none for what they do in response.

  4. avatar zz556zz says:

    So what’s this scary advertising they’re talking about?

    I’ve now read a bunch of articles all over Google about this trying to find a picture or video of this “scary, bad and illegal” advertising…

    Can anyone post a pic or link?

    Thanks

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      I was wondering the same thing. Remington and Bushmaster advertising is generally some pretty tame stuff.

    2. avatar Swarf says:

      The article I read this morning referred to an ad that said something about your “man card” being reissued, or similar.

      Is that stupid, childish advertising? Of course it is. Just like all other advertising.

      It still didn’t make anyone do anything they aren’t solely responsible for, just like booze ads pretending hangovers don’t exist or car ads pretending people can drive worth a shit doesn’t make advertisers responsible for folks getting drunk and wrecking their Challenger.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Here it is :

        “Consider Your Man Card Reissued.”

        https://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-gray/bushmaster-rifle-ad-masculinity-gun-violence-newtown-adam-lanza_b_2317924.html

        “In a press release for the marketing campaign, distributed in 2010, Bushmaster Firearms explained how one becomes a “card-carrying man”:

        …visitors of bushmaster.com will have to prove they’re a man by answering a series of manhood questions. Upon successful completion, they will be issued a temporary Man Card to proudly display to friends and family. The Man Card is valid for one year.

        Visitors can also call into question or even revoke the Man Card of friends they feel have betrayed their manhood. The man in question will then have to defend himself, and their Man Card, by answering a series of questions geared towards proving indeed, they are worthy of retaining their card.”

      2. avatar Jim from LI says:

        Not sure how the “man card” advertising worked to induce the Sandy Hook shooter’s mother to buy the rifle in question.

      3. avatar UpInArms says:

        I have some vague recall that during the 2016 campaign farce, the Hillary dupes were issuing some kind of card to the true believers — a Hillary card, or a Woman card– some such nonsense. Could it be that the Man Card ad was some kind of take-off or parody of that silliness?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Does it really even matter?

          Nowhere in the ad does Remington imply that getting or keeping one’s “man card” is in any way associated with committing a lawful act with their product.

  5. avatar HEGEMON says:

    An emotion based and hate filled decision. In other news, you can STILL murder children in the womb with impunity. Our courts are liberal/progressive sewers.

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      And in even even other news, it’s still perfectly OK to sexually assault and rape, in PUBLIC no less, so long as the perps wear a badge. As I’ve been saying here since the site started(to plenty of abuse, I might add), WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY OF LAWS, BUT ONLY OF THE BUREAUCRATS’ WHIMS.
      Could it be made any clearer? If your answer was: “yes”, just wait around and read the news for a few days. Even more heinous abuses are on the way. Once evil escapes it’s chains(like now, with the law impotent and irrelevant), it doesn’t ever stop until the sheep it feasts upon either become extinct, or else they wake up and make it stop.
      https://thefreethoughtproject.com/innocent-woman-publicly-search-roadside/

  6. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Nuisance Lawsuit Against Gun Makers May Continue”

    This sets a dangerous precedent, now ANY manufacturer will be at risk for ANY reason…get into an accident, hit by a Ford, guess what, you can now sue Ford, it will go on and on, loading the courts with 10x, 100x, 1000x more frivolous lawsuits that there already are…what a shame that liberal judges can’t see the reality of such things, then again, liberals don’t live within the realm of reality, they live on the fringes, just like their constituents/supporters…

    Liberalism IS a mental disorder…

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      One, this has no precedent outside of the state of Connecticut.

      Two, nothing has been determined regarding the underlying facts of the lawsuit. The CT supreme court has merely allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

      Three, the lawsuit is being allowed to proceed on a clearly tenuous connection with state statute regarding unfair and deceptive trade practices:

      Sec. 42-110b. Unfair trade practices prohibited. Legislative intent. (a) No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

      The argument that advertising that glorifies or encourages unlawful use of the product being advertised would not even fall under the scope of being “unfair” or “deceptive”.

      Four: the respondents of the lawsuit did not engage in any form of trade with the perpetrator; therefore, the respondents’ advertising being “unfair” or “deceptive” is moot.

      1. avatar Geoff "What's a head good for, if you can't play with it?" PR says:

        “Four: the respondents of the lawsuit did not engage in any form of trade with the perpetrator; therefore, the respondents’ advertising being “unfair” or “deceptive” is moot.”

        Wasn’t that angle successfully used against cigarette companies and their advertisers for ‘glamorizing’ smoking with the ‘Marlboro Man’?

        How did that end up working for ‘Big Tobacco’?

        They are using the same playbook tactics used against ‘Big Tobacco’…

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Wasn’t that angle successfully used against cigarette companies and their advertisers for ‘glamorizing’ smoking with the ‘Marlboro Man’?

          Again, the perpetrator did not purchase the firearm. He did not participate in any form of commerce. He shot the owner of the firearm, and then stole the firearm.

        2. avatar Mad Max says:

          Big tobacco was not protected from lawsuits by a federal law.

        3. avatar QED says:

          Again, the perpetrator did not purchase the firearm. He did not participate in any form of commerce. He shot the owner of the firearm, and then stole the firearm.

          There is evidence she bought it for him to use. And his lack of participation in the commerce is tenuous at best as a defense given that there are many successful interstate commerce related suits with a child who did not make the purchase itself.And do you know the condition of the gun safe? If it was not physically cut open and I understand it was not, the argument is that it was not stolen.

          Given the cigarette maker suits the real protection is in the specific firearms makers and sellers law — which is the target of this suit which is already a win for gun control on a public relations front even if eventually lost by them

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          There is evidence she bought it for him to use.

          Then perhaps the complainants should go after her for negligent entrustment.

          Oh, wait: they can’t. Because she’s dead. Because he murdered her.

          Unless the complainants have some evidence that the respondents knew that she was purchasing it for him AND that he would be likely to use it for unlawful purposes, that dog won’t hunt.

          And his lack of participation in the commerce is tenuous at best as a defense given that there are many successful interstate commerce related suits with a child who did not make the purchase itself.And do you know the condition of the gun safe? If it was not physically cut open and I understand it was not, the argument is that it was not stolen.

          The safe was unlocked using the key, which was possessed by the lawful firearm owner, whom the perpetrator murdered in order to gain possession of (i.e. steal) the key.

          Only a lawyer could try to argue that someone murdering someone to take a key, in order to gain entry into a locked safe he didn’t own or control, in order to take possession of a firearm inside of the locked safe – a firearm that he did not own or control – would somehow not be considered theft.

        5. avatar QED says:

          Chip we are on the same side, but that safe (really a locking filing cabinet), was in his room and all the evidence is the firearms where his. There was a check from her for purchase of another firearm as well.

          The fact is you are not the CT Supreme Court, and they are what counted here. If you are saying it a is purely partisan decisions by the CT higher court; then given the extremely partisan record in the federal courts on 2A issues, your suggestion that this is not a substantial risk is the “dog that wont hunt.” We have 4.5 members of the US Supreme court.

          This is a case with serious risk and already serious damage to the 2A. Any company that makes AR15 pattern and has marketed it the way the Bushmaster did is at risk. company that have other product lines are especially likely to be chilled and take risk reductions decisions.

          from your comments I am fairly sure you are not an attorney, and you certainly do not have experience in large corporate decision making where risk is a major issue and even failed lawsuits affect a business’s decisions.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Nope, not a lawyer. I’m an engineer at heart, which is why I typically don’t understand lawyer “logic.” I deal with risk management daily, but in an entirely different context.

      2. avatar WI Patriot says:

        How narrow minded you are, think outside the box, not just in your mind…Things start in one place and spread like wildfire, but then again, I don’t suppose you think that far out…

        The sooner you open your eyes, the better off you’ll be…

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          How narrow minded you are, think outside the box, not just in your mind…Things start in one place and spread like wildfire, but then again, I don’t suppose you think that far out…

          Hi. You must be new here.

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      The kid was on meds….or off his meds. That’s the cause. Who kills his own mother???
      Did the gun manufacturer put evil thoughts into his head.

  7. avatar Alexander Marinesko says:

    Ford have some responsibility for hit and runs! Stupid!!!
    Did the shooter wear jeans? Levis should share some responsibility.
    Did the shooter have fillings in his teeth? The dentist!!!

    Liberal, democratic snowflake judges……..

    1. avatar Geoff "What's a head good for, if you can't play with it?" PR says:

      “Ford have some responsibility for hit and runs! Stupid!!!”

      (Playing ‘Devil’s Advocate, but not as well as Sam I Am)

      Ford didn’t design their vehicles to kill. Gunmakers do.

      (We’ll leave out for now the ‘Inconvenient Truth’ that vehicles, *expressly* designed not to kill, kill tens of thousands annually…)

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Ford didn’t design their vehicles to kill. Gunmakers do.”

        Actually….

        Gunmakers make guns to stop the threat, right?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Gunmakers make guns to stop the threat, right?

          Actually, gunmakers design guns to expel a projectile when the action is engaged through pressing of the trigger. No more; no less.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Actually, gunmakers design guns to expel a projectile when the action is engaged through pressing of the trigger. No more; no less.”

          But where is the market for a device that expels a projectile to no purpose? Can’t imagine anyone wanting to buy even a cheap Highpoint that only pushes a projectile a few inches beyond the end of the barrel, at low speed to boot.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          My projectile-expelling devices are equally effective against paper, steel plates, and the occasional pop can or balloon. I would have no clue how they do against human flesh, and hope never to find out.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “My projectile-expelling devices are equally effective against paper, steel plates, and the occasional pop can or balloon.”

          Agree, your projectile-expelling device has a purpose, multiple purposes but can be misused.; likewise, a gun. In a discussion between a car and a gun as purposed designed for different things, I claim guns are made for purposes other than killing, just like cars. Therefore, if a killing through use of a gun can result in the trial of the gun maker, then obviously, a car used to kill someone should qualify as grounds to sue the manufacturer, even though the car was not purpose built for killing. I just wonder when the climate change nazis will get around to criminalizing production of cars.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I just wonder when the climate change nazis will get around to criminalizing production of cars.

          I’m pretty sure they already blame your SUV for killing the dinosaurs.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m pretty sure they already blame your SUV for killing the dinosaurs.”

          Didn’t know you lived around here. Will keep an eye out for you, and keep the SUV in the garage during daylight hours.

          Chip –
          You seem to be back to full speed. Happy to see you engaged like this.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Ford didn’t design their vehicles to kill. Gunmakers do.

        Then gunmakers are piss-poor designers. There are three or four hundred million firearms in circulation in the US. Billions, if not trillions, of rounds expended through those firearms annually. And yet, only 30,000 firearm-related deaths annually.

        Heck, even if we look at the incidents in which a firearm is used with the express intent of killing the target – including both homicide and suicide – the kill rate doesn’t speak well to the design of firearms, if gunmakers design their firearms to kill.

  8. avatar hal_greaves says:

    So by this logic any automaker who advertises their sports cars driving recklessly around would be liable, since they are advertising dangerous and illegal activity

    interesting

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Next time, look at the small white print at the bottom of the screen. It says, in effect, “Professional driver on a closed course. Do not try this at home.”

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        They put that legal CYA on all their ads, including showing a car driving by a park at reasonable speeds. The cars are almost always on a “closed course” since they don’t want other cars getting in their shot, and they’re paying the driver, so he’s a professional.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The Deceptive Trade Practice tactic is truly novel in this instance. Smells a lot like the attempts to criminally charge climate change deniers, or anyone who says or writes anything in opposition. A victory in either matter could open a whole new world regarding advertising. Can you imagine the possible number of suits against whatever product that complainers can say caused an injury because advertising made a normal person irrational, claiming the deceased would not have used the product if advertising had not been so persuasive?

    In the Sandy Hook instance, assuming the courts do not permit unlimited fishing in corporate records, it will be interesting to see how the complainers link advertising to a mentally disturbed person. Seems there would need to be a showing that there was no other influence on the killer’s decision making. Of course, a jury wanting to convict someone, anyone, will not care about links, or anything else; only the ability to make someone pay.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      …it will be interesting to see how the complainers link advertising to a mentally disturbed person.

      The mentally disturbed person in question did not engage in trade with the manufacturer in acquiring the firearm. He stole it.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The mentally disturbed person in question did not engage in trade with the manufacturer in acquiring the firearm. He stole it.”

        Demonstrating just how powerful advertising guns can be? Here is someone who was merely a bystander to his mother having guns. He became so unhinged due to advertising that he was driven to his actions, unable to resist the promise of power and satisfaction of holding and using a gun?

        Laws, circumstance, logic, justice don’t matter. All that matters is what an attorney can make a jury believe.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Demonstrating just how powerful advertising guns can be? Here is someone who was merely a bystander to his mother having guns. He became so unhinged due to advertising that he was driven to his actions, unable to resist the promise of power and satisfaction of holding and using a gun?

          Which specific ads did the perpetrator see? Which ones influenced him? On which ones did he act?

          It’s the same, four-part proof that I listed earlier. There is zero evidence to support it.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There is zero evidence to support it.”

          To borrow from E.S. Gardner, “Irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial !”

          A bad mother, and also obviously bad because she was a gun owner, was all the connection needed between advertising (related to the killer through his mother). Advertising is so pervasive as to be impossible to pinpoint a specific word or phrase in a cacophony of words, images and text seducing a vulnerable person to do that which, absent the pervasive nature of the gun culture, he otherwise would not have done. This latter statement is borne out by the fact that the killer only committed his actions after his mother brought the weapon of war into the home. Prior to that, the killer expressed no interest in firearms, or harming others with a firearm. Ipse dixit.

          How’s that?

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Advertising is so pervasive as to be impossible to pinpoint a specific word or phrase in a cacophony of words, images and text seducing a vulnerable person to do that which, absent the pervasive nature of the gun culture, he otherwise would not have done.

          First, advertising may be pervasive, but the complainants will need to present some evidence that the perpetrator actually consumed the respondents’ advertising. (I’m making an educated guess that established CT case law involving “unfair” or “deceptive” advertising have to present actual examples of specific advertising, and have to present evidence that the harmed parties consumed that specific advertising.)

          This latter statement is borne out by the fact that the killer only committed his actions after his mother brought the weapon of war into the home. Prior to that, the killer expressed no interest in firearms, or harming others with a firearm.

          I do not make a habit of committing considerable, minute detail of such incidents to memory, but IIRC:

          1. The lawful owner (i.e. the perpetrator’s mother) purchased the various firearms used in the unlawful acts over the course of several years (the AR15 was purchased two years prior)
          2. The perpetrator used not only the AR15, but several other firearms in the commission of his unlawful acts. (Did Remington’s advertising induce him to use the .22LR rifle and the two semiautomatic pistols?)
          3. The perpetrator had exhibited prior interest in firearms.
          4. The perpetrator had exhibited prior interest in mass shootings.

          I’ll add some additional details:

          One: the perpetrator had created a spreadsheet of prior mass and spree killings. As such, he would have been fully aware of the minor role played by the AR15 in such shootings overall. (And the perpetrator had a particular fascination with Columbine, which was carried out using a shotgun and handguns – not an AR15.)

          Two: the perpetrator was diagnosed with Asperger’s (on the autism spectrum) and other psychiatric disorders. As such, because of his state of mind, it is not reasonable to conclude that the respondents’ advertising was targeted at the perpetrator, or that the respondents can reasonably be held responsible for the actions of someone not in a right state of mind in response to their advertising.

          (I had to look some of this up again…)

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Ok, you looked up some great facts, but….

          I have this here table right in front of me, and I’m gonna pound it until the reality that everyone connected with guns is responsible for each and every death by gunshot that occurred, going all the way back to to China in the 12th century. Guns bad. Dead people bad. Direct connection…no guns, no dead people (or at least, no dead people caused by the use of guns). I don’t have to be legally correct if I am morally correct !

          Back to you.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I don’t have to be legally correct if I am morally correct !

          Back to you.

          What’s next; with that moral high ground, are you going to claim that Remington is responsible for caging children and poisoning Indian burial grounds?

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What’s next; with that moral high ground, are you going to claim that Remington is responsible for caging children and poisoning Indian burial grounds?”

          Small potatoes.

          I’m gonna claim that all evil in the world is the fault and responsibility of the United States. Evil that is so pervasive and powerful, that the US was able to create evil for thousands of years before there was a United States. Since the beginning of time, the world has suffered evil at the hands of the US.

          Cain’t get no higher moral ground than that.

          But, all seriousness aside, juries do not decide who is legally right or wrong. Juries decide which lawyer the they like best.

  10. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I know it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic, but that has to be just about the ugliest woman I have ever seen.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…but that has to be just about the ugliest woman I have ever seen.”

      Careful. You could be sued for drawing a conclusion based on facts not in evidence.

    2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

      Sorry, but this is the East Coast…And that, Urhh, Officer is just one of the guys! Matter of fact, I just legally identified as a Jar of Skippy Peanut Butter! Honey roasted!

    3. avatar Roh-Dog says:

      I’ve talked with her a couple times, she’s a good woman. Retired almost right after this picture was taken, probably because that was *the* image attached to the ‘gun debate’ here in CT. I’m pretty sure her husband is/was a Trooper too.

    4. avatar Wade Spooner says:

      She should be sued for trying to turn men gay.

      1. avatar Wade Spooner says:

        Yes that was an offensive thing to say, but my point was to say that if Remington’s stupid ads cause mass murder then it is just as rational to say that ugly women cause male homosexuality.

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Since the perpetrator didn’t purchase the firearm in question, then advertising intended to compel purchase of the firearm is not applicable to the perpetrator. The perpetrator, since he unlawfully murdered the lawful firearm owner, stole the key to the firearm owner’s locked firearm safe, and then stole the firearm from the safe, was not privy to any purchase-contract relationships among the firearm owner, the firearm retailer, the firearm distributor, or the firearm manufacturer.

    So, how could the firearm manufacturer’s advertising have been considered an “illegal trade practice”, when the perpetrator of the unlawful acts in question was not privy to or otherwise part of the trade in question?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So, how could the firearm manufacturer’s advertising have been considered an “illegal trade practice”, when the perpetrator of the unlawful acts in question was not privy to or otherwise part of the trade in question?”

      How about….

      The pervasive, overwhelming gun culture, and the advertising of guns to make people believe guns make them powerful, and the ability to get a gun being easier than buying gas at 7-11, and the targeting of the socially and mentally weak demonstrating that anyone can be powerful and respected if they have a gun, and the fact that advertising is designed to make people think they are in imminent danger and only guns can make them safe, that advertising raises the blood lust in vulnerable young men, causing the killer to murder his mother so he could set about righting perceived wrongs with her now easy to obtain scary, ugly, black weapon of war….and so forth?

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        So, how will the complainants prove:

        a) the respondents’ specific advertising in question
        b) that the perpetrator saw said advertising
        c) that the perpetrator was influenced by respondents’ advertising to commit unlawful acts, and
        d) that the perpetrator selected the firearm in question as his “weapon of choice” because of the respondents’ advertising

        The only way to implicate the specific respondents in this lawsuit is to implicate all firearm advertising – just as the complainants have done in implicating all AR15s as “weapons of war”. From the decision:

        The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently
        entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle

        The “first theory of liability”, which would call into question the very sale of AR15s to civilians (ibid):

        The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users.

        The “second theory of liability”, which addresses marketing of AR15s in general (ibid):

        The plaintiffs’ second theory of liability was that the defendants marketed the rifle, through advertising and product catalogs, in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of the rifle as a combat weapon that is intended to be used for the purposes of waging war and killing human beings. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants advertised this rifle differently from how they would promote and sell rifles intended for legal civilian purposes such as hunting and recreation. In connection with this second theory of liability, the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ marketing of the rifle to civilians for offensive assault missions was a substantial factor in causing the decedents’ injuries in that L’s attack, had it occurred at all, would have been less lethal if L had not been encouraged by the defendants’ marketing campaign to select the rifle in question as his weapon of choice.

        More interesting is how the CT supreme court basically eviscerated the state’s legislative intent of statutes of limitation in order to allow the lawsuit to proceed (ibid):

        This court concluded that a cause of action for wrongful death predicated on a CUTPA violation must comply with both the statute of limitations applicable to wrongful death claims, § 52-555 (a), which is two years from the date of death and no more than five years from the date of the act or omission complained of, and the statute of limitations applicable to CUTPA claims, § 42-110g (f), which is three years from the date of the alleged violation, this court having reasoned that any limitation period contained in a statute such as CUTPA, which creates a right of action that did not exist at common law, constitutes an essential element of the cause of action created thereunder, and that, under this state’s wrongful death statute, an action will lie only insofar as the decedent, had he or she survived, could have satisfied all of the elements of the underlying theory of liability on which the allegedly wrongful death is predicated; because it was undisputed that the manufacturing, distribution and final sale of the rifle to L’s mother all occurred at least three years prior to the commencement of the present action, the plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims predicated on the theory that any sale of military style assault weapons, such as the rifle in question, represented an unfair trade practice were time barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, but the plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims predicated on the theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by advertising and marketing the rifle in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner were not time barred, as most of the plaintiffs’ wrongful advertising and marketing claims were phrased in the present tense and, thus, could be interpreted to allege that the defendants’ wrongful conduct continued through the time the complaint was filed, and as at least one allegation reasonably could be interpreted to mean that the defendants’ wrongful conduct had occurred at the time of the shootings, which was within the limitation period.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You know what’s coming…

          When you have the law, pound the law.
          When you don’t have the law, but have the facts, pound the facts.
          When you have neither law, nor facts, pound the table (emotions).

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “When you have the law, pound the law.”

          A good thing to keep in mind, *especially* when the political pendulum swings back in the Leftist’s favor, and they do away with the PLCA.

          Just imagine the *fun* when that happens, sports fans, especially when SCOTUS eventually (inevitably) swings Leftist again.

          Gun rights are more tenuous than many would like to believe…

      2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        If only buying gas at a 7-11 were more difficult 80+ people in NYC may be alive today. The largest mass murder in the United States was committed with a small amount of gasoline and a cigarette lighter. Where was the hue and cry for universal background checks and waiting periods for gas cans and Bic lighters then?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Where was the hue and cry for universal background checks and waiting periods for gas cans and Bic lighters then?”

          Please understand Chip and I are not debating positions, only the possible postulations of how a good lawyer might go about making connections between the shooter and the gunmaker. We both see the lawsuit as idiotic. I, for one, hope the complainers lose their shirts financially.

        2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Sam, that was not lost on me. I was merely trying to point out what I think is an irony. The anti-gunners don’t seem to care about homicide victims unless the weapon used is a firearm.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The anti-gunners don’t seem to care about homicide victims unless the weapon used is a firearm.”

          Indeed. I’ve tried collecting articles on the names, numbers and strength of the anti-gun groups to reduce “gun violence” in the inner cities. I keep looking.

      3. avatar Tiger says:

        Your mind reading a dead guy?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Your mind reading a dead guy?”

          If it helps win the case…you bet.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Your mind reading a dead guy?”

          If it helps win the case…you bet.

          Why not? It worked for former VP candidate John Edwards.

    2. avatar Bruce W. Krafft says:

      Doesn’t matter Chip; it was because of the marketing that the shooter chose this weapon. If it hadn’t been for Remington he never would have murdered his mother to get the gun and shot up the school.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Doesn’t matter Chip; it was because of the marketing that the shooter chose this weapon.

        And how, exactly, will the complainants prove that assertion?

      2. avatar Geoff "What's a head good for, if you can't play with it?" PR says:

        Good seeing you again, Bruce!

        Drop in more often!

  12. avatar randy soles says:

    So, Are we going to sue car dealerships because some criminal decides to purposely run someone down?
    People have become IDIOTS

  13. avatar W says:

    This is another reminder of how important judicial appointments are.

    1. avatar TheMan says:

      Yep, and idiots like Glenn Beck actively worked against Trump being elected so he could feel morally superior to the sinners that wanted conservative judges appointed.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        He isn’t complaining now, if you notice…

  14. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Off to the Supreme Court we go. And YES water is still wet Connecticut a##holes. You cant suite a firearms maker over me using their products to shoot up their house with. If I so choose too. Thats not their fault.

  15. avatar Andrew says:

    They owe $200k to the ammo dealer they will be real upset when they owe that and probably more to Remington. Hell gunowners rarely give Remington that much.

  16. avatar NORDNEG says:

    I got $100.00 bucks that says this won’t fly,,,
    I believe there is already a law that shields gun manufacturers,,,,
    Maybe I’m wrong,,, but I’m hardly ever wrong,,,
    Right boss…???😎

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I believe there is already a law that shields gun manufacturers,,,,”

      Yep, the PLCA (Protection In Lawful Commerce Of Arms) Act.

      If you think it is “etched in stone”, I have a bridge to sell you.

      As soon as the political winds turn in their favor, the Leftists *will* do away with that impediment to their ‘evil plans’…

  17. avatar Robert Curns says:

    Anyone that is hit by a car, sue the car company. Here is the precedent. Idiots.

  18. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    “They told us we’d lose this lawsuit because there are laws that say we can’t sue these guys.”

    And yet the stupid people still went ahead with it and are now crying like little bitches because they failed. It’s mind boggling how dumb the gun grabbers really are.

  19. avatar james says:

    The way she holds that rifle, like it has germs on it.
    She has sagging tits.

  20. avatar Bert says:

    Wow. Physicists are wrong. There is something denser than a black hole: A gun nut.

    This is not a suit about gun liability. It’s a consumer protection action. Remington’s advertising is claimed to have violated STATE ADVERTISING LAW. So, it’s not about product liability and not a federal lawsuit. PLACA has nothing to do with this. Period.

    Connecticut has no law allowing the recovery of legs fees for “legitimate” tort actions (which the court ruled this is), so the brainiac writing this is again wrong.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Bert says:

      This is not a suit about gun liability.

      The decision says:

      The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users. The plaintiffs’ second theory of liability was that the defendants marketed the rifle, through advertising and product catalogs, in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of the rifle as a combat weapon that is intended to be used for the purposes of waging war and killing human beings. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants advertised this rifle differently from how they would promote and sell rifles intended for legal civilian purposes such as hunting and recreation. In connection with this second theory of liability, the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ marketing of the rifle to civilians for offensive assault missions was a substantial factor in causing the decedents’ injuries in that L’s attack, had it occurred at all, would have been less lethal if L had not been encouraged by the defendants’ marketing campaign to select the rifle in question as his weapon of choice.

      Next time, try reading first.

    2. avatar QED says:

      Bert, you prove that gun control nuts are the most dense in the world (no suprise since the data show the vast majority of gun control nuts say gun murder rose the past 25 years, when it fell by 50%). Gun control depends on people like you who don’t know the basic facts.

      To wit your claim that:

      This is not a suit about gun liability. It’s a consumer protection action. Remington’s advertising is claimed to have violated STATE ADVERTISING LAW. So, it’s not about product liability and not a federal lawsuit. PLACA has nothing to do with this. Period.

      Until today this was 90% a PLCCA case but today the Connecticut supreme court threw out the specific attempt to make this a general gun liability case.

      You guys LOST 75% of the case today and asserting the crumbs you got are a major win means what except that you are delusional

      Read the actual filing by the Newton group against Remington, the decision by superior court judge Bellis throwing out this nuisance suit, and the appeal to Conn supreme court and the fact that the Conn. Supreme Court largely greed with Bellis and upheld most of her decision

      so you mean despite desperate attempts by this group to make it a generally “gun liability” case to ‘break PLCAA”, which was the core of the case, they now have an VERY limited advertising case solely and every knows very thinly on CUPTA.

  21. avatar GS650G says:

    They need to get constitution state off the licence plates.

  22. avatar Alan says:

    This court decision is pure hogwash. That said,I wonder as to how long before the firearms industry tires of unending baloney,and pulls out of CT., Mass., and N.Y.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “That said,I wonder as to how long before the firearms industry tires of unending baloney,and pulls out of CT., Mass., and N.Y.”

      Even if you consider gun manufacturing to be “light industrial”, moving a production facility is expensive and time consuming, creating a “bathtub” in your delivery schedule. The only way it would make financial sense to move a gun manufacturer is data to tell you that the disruption will have negligible effect on your financials, AND that there will be sufficient future demand to cover the costs, and lost revenues.

      But moving the manufacturing may prove unnecessary. Operation Chokepoint is not dead. There were hearings yesterday, or today, where the Dims browbeat (threatened) Wells Fargo to self-impose the function of Chokepoint so as to dry up funding for disfavored businesses, such as gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers.

  23. avatar Saran Wrappe says:

    I look at this lawsuit and only see failure. The argument, that is was marketed as a military rifle, and a person would buy an AR15 as it can kill “so many” with ease. (Typical BS)

    But…the shooter did not buy the rifle, therefore the marketing did not affect him nor cause him to buy it. His mom bought the rifle, but how convenient that she can’t testify. Also, as reported, the firearms he used were locked up but he was able to access them.

    BS meter to 10.1

  24. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Since these people can’t be fired you find out who they are sleeping with and go from there.

  25. avatar strych9 says:

    I don’t think this suit will prevail.

    That said, winning in court probably isn’t the idea. Costing Remington a boatload to defend themselves with no hope of recouping their cost via counter-suit is likely the point.

  26. avatar Sean Ebra says:

    So what if they sue Remington and in response every gun owner in America responds by buying a Remington firearm in response?

  27. avatar 24and7 says:

    There are too many unanswered questions about the legitimacy of the Sandy Hook “shooting”..Look into the shady victims families..look deeper into all the timelines and first responders actions.. too bad they took down some of the great investigative journalism that uncovered a lot of the flat out lies..”We need to talk about Sandy Hook”..

    1. avatar GPC says:

      Sandy Hook was a hoax F those families.
      F Connecticut they should be kicked out of the union.

  28. avatar Weapon Of War says:

    Gosh Damn! What a bull-dyke holding that rifle in the picture.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email