BREAKING: Supreme Court Denies Cert in Remington Suit, Connecticut Case Will Go Forward

Supreme Court gun control new york state rifle & pistol

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

[ED: For background on the lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook parents and a survivor against Remington, see our posts here and here.]

From the AP:

The Supreme Court is letting a lawsuit proceed against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

The justices rejected an appeal Tuesday from Remington Arms that argued a 2005 federal law shields firearms manufacturers from most lawsuits when their products are used in crimes.

The court’s order allows a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, school in 2012 to pursue their claims.

The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that gunman Adam Lanza used to kill 20 first graders and six educators. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.

The National Rifle Association was among those urging the court to jump into the case and end the lawsuit against Remington.

comments

  1. avatar D says:

    just more proof that we can not trust the courts to protect our rights.

    1. avatar dd says:

      “North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that gunman Adam Lanza used to kill 20 first graders and six educators”

      The rifle was not sold to Adam Lanza. It was sold to his mother who was murdered by Adam in order to get it

      1. avatar Napresto says:

        Seriously

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Perhaps his mother identified as a younger, at risk male (whatever that is)?

        1. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          “Perhaps his mother identified as a younger, at risk male”

          Well, let’s subpoena her ass and ask her that in court. If she refuses to testify, they can hold her in contempt of court!

          Oh, wait…

      3. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

        We’re not supposed to know Lanza had to kill his own mother in order to access the key and locked cabinet where she stored the rifle. It’s a hidden fact only stupid people will not question because there’s an agenda to be pushed. His own mother knew he was erratic and untrustworthy and idiots are supposed to assume access to a magical Black Rifle was the true cause.
        The same issue could be argued with Prohibition, which didn’t work, and was repealed. Some people turn into an instant asshole when alcohol is added but the alcohol doesn’t cause the problem, it magnifies and aggravates what is already present in the individual.

        1. avatar Dan says:

          If his own mother knew he was erratic and untrustworthy she shouldn’t have let him keep the rifle he used to kill her with in his room.

        2. avatar rt66paul says:

          And some people turn into an instant asshole when a firearm is added but the firearm doesn’t cause the problem, it magnifies and aggravates what is already present in the individual.

          This is the case with immature male identities, who haven’t had a father figure(or a gunny) around to teach what’s what. It is true with cars, boats, drugs, etc. It is sad that the schools don’t teach about how normal equipment is handled anymore, from shop classes, cooking classes, driver’s ed, etc. Who is going to teach them if there in no mother or father figure around?

          This is true in many places where both parents bust ass just for a roof and food for the children – many work a job apiece, commuting for 3-4 hours, arriving home to made a late dinner and to get some type of business up for the weekend. The more kids you have, the further away from the city you live, because you can’t afford, say, a 5 or 6 bedroom home, or even afford to add on on a large bedroom for “the boys” to share.

        3. avatar Dude says:

          “the firearm doesn’t cause the problem, it magnifies and aggravates what is already present in the individual.”

          This is so true. The same can be said about the stereotypical “roid rage”. The truth is that steroids don’t turn you into an overly aggressive asshole, but if you’re already a douchebag gymbro to begin with, then it amplifies it. Typical ignorant, emotional response of “it sounds reasonable” instead of using facts and reason.

        4. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          “The truth is that steroids don’t turn you into an overly aggressive asshole, but if you’re already a douchebag gymbro to begin with, then it amplifies it.”

          Just like alcohol. It shows the core personality…

        5. avatar Southern Cross says:

          In vino veritas. In wine there is truth. Alcohol doesn’t cause violence. It just lowers the social inhibitions that prevent most people from being violent.

        6. avatar CC says:

          “And some people turn into an instant asshole when a firearm is added but the firearm doesn’t cause the problem, it magnifies and aggravates what is already present in the individual.]”

          You have it backwards. I am thinking your e projecting your own violent impulses onto everyone else.

          The data in fact show that overall firearms in civilian hands greatly reduce overall violence and crime. Many time more crimes are prevented with firearms than committed with them.

          As far as an individual who has a propensity to violence, consider the fact that western europe has had three times as many large mass murders of 50 or more people in the past decade than the US has had. Most without guns. People who have this propensity don’t need guns to commit mass murder in the modern world and no guns doesn’t slow they down they pick another means..

        7. avatar Someone says:

          Dan, maybe, but that still isn’t Remington’s fault.

      4. avatar ewi3020 says:

        ** REMINGTON ** didn’t sell ANYTHING to him or his Mother. The gun dealer did, and was responsible for running any background checks.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          This was the very first thing that crossed my mind as I read the article. Why is the manufacturer being singled out as the sole Defendant?

          What about the gun dealer, if we want to truly follow the plaintiff’s logic?

          What about the mother, who took measures to lock the gun, but apparently didn’t foresee the possibility that her own son would murder her to obtain the key? The plaintiff’s logic dictates that she should have known her son would do anything up to and including murder to obtain the gun.

          There MUST be more to this story than we’re seeing in print. SCOTUS can’t seriously be denying certiori based upon the simple facts we’ve been shown. Otherwise, get ready Ford and Toyota…you’re about to be sued for many millions $$ because you sold your SUVs to dealerships, who then sold them to mothers, who then parked and locked them in the garage and kept the keys in a drawer, but then their sons drank too much alcohol, beat up their mothers, got the keys, and drove down the street into a group of young kids. Now we have dead kids and it’s Ford’s fault.

          You think that sounds absurd? That’s EXACTLY the logic of what’s happening with this case.

        2. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          “This was the very first thing that crossed my mind as I read the article. Why is the manufacturer being singled out as the sole Defendant?”

          A national advertising campaign, paid for by the manufacturer.

          They are going after guns the same way they went after cigarettes. And look what happened to cigarettes, and the shunning of smokers. “Ew! Yuckky smoker! Don’t do that around me!”

          It’s the same playbook, people. Get used to it…

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          I suspect the problem is that the plaintiffs had a good strategy.

          They are using a state law about (IIRC) deceptive marketing as the basis for getting into court.

          If Remington is NOT being sued for selling a gun then the court taking the case is not violating the Lawful Commerce in Arms law. Remington is being sued for something arguably outside the scope of THAT statute.

          It’s a separate matter as to whether the argument being used by the plaintiffs will hold water with a jury or whether it would stand-up to scrutiny by SCOTUS.

          We might assume that the jury will find Remington guilty of violating the state marketing law. And, we might assume that the CT supreme court will uphold that conviction. Then, Remington could appeal to SCOTUS that the CT marketing law was unConstitutional. SCOTUS would probably not take such a case.

          The position Remington is in is really unfortunate. Nevertheless, our American system is a litigious system. Nearly anyone can sue nearly anyone else over something that doesn’t seem justified. And, that adds to the cost of doing business. We consumers all pay this price.

          I suspect the impact will be that major manufacturers will consider withdrawing from the retail market. E.g., perhaps not advertise or not sell in states where laws are used against gun manufacturers. The retail markets will be left to smaller players willing to take the risk of litigation. Or, much of the retail market will be taken up by 80% receiver kits.

        4. avatar Pro 2A says:

          Smokers, and Cigarettes ARE disgusting, and second hand smoke is a reason to tell you to get the F away from me. If you wan to kill yourself with cigarettes, do it without forcing anyone else to suffer your stupidity.

      5. avatar Sam says:

        They never said it was sold to the POS. Just that it was sold in general at all, which is worse.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          No, the plaintiffs are arguing Remington’s sales tactics, in which they claim the manufacturer knowingly and willingly marketed to people they “should have known” shouldn’t have had access to them.

          So now even the gun manufacturers are expected to join in the game of suspecting everyone as guilty before proving themselves as innocent and safe with their guns.

      6. avatar Hugh Janus says:

        They aren’t saying that Remington should not have sold the rifle to Adam Lanza.

        They are saying that Remington should not have sold the rifle AT ALL

        1. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          “They are saying that Remington should not have sold the rifle AT ALL”

          No, that’s the end goal they want, but it is not the legal claim.

          Their claim is the ‘Man Card’ advertisement helped push the little bastard over the edge…

        2. avatar Southern Cross says:

          And “real men” shoot children in a school?

      7. avatar RogerK says:

        “Sandy Hook” was a hoax… and a poorly staged one. A high school journalism club could have done a much better job.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Oh please, share your evidence, witness statements and testimony to support your claim that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

          You must have solid evidence to make such a claim, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so I’m really interested in what you’re holding.

          Please share.

      8. avatar Corioliseffect says:

        Very well said.

    2. avatar Merle 0 says:

      Yep. This is a big deal. This could be the end of firearm manufacturers in America. All that effort to flip the court has been a waste. It seems just as everytime we get a “majority” one of the justices has to flip to being liberal. I honestly smell a conspiracy, and I’m not one to jump to that conclusion lightly.

      1. avatar George from Alaska says:

        I’m also very concerned about where this could go. The law to protect manufacturers was totally ignored by the SC. So much for the Trump appointees having any balls.

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        I do worry about this, but I think the supreme Court are giving the state just enough rope to hang themselves with, so that, if the state wins, the Supreme Court can quash it.

        People that live with unstable house members need to figure out how to keep them from their stuff. That is the point here, not that these normal sporting rifles were sold legally. These rifles were designed to work this way and were purchased because they do. They are legal and should stay so. That being said, we should keep them out of the hands of damaged people that have a right into our homes. What is next, car owners being charged with murder when their car get stolen and someone is killed?

        1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

          Ah, Supreme Court 4D Chess, no doubt it is in their master plan to advance gun rights like how they will overturn the bump stock ban and wipe out the Hughes amendment and NFA. Don’t we get the comments for and against granting cert like where we have gotten to read Thomas’ dissent?

          I am more guessing the liberals voted against it, some conservatives (hopefully) voted for cert, and a couple joined the liberal wing against it.

          Without the comments it is hard to know what they thought, but it definitely doesn’t seem like they majority thinks Rem is protected from frivolous lawsuits. I wonder if they will fight on or settle. Expensive either way. Next up, sue just about everyone since Mr. Vegas killer had quite a variety of brands represented.

          If the issue is the advertising, then firearms mfgs will need to further lawyer up. More warnings engraved all over the gun, “warning, this end has bullets coming out of it.” “Warning, it isn’t cool to shoot up a school.” “Warning: consider counseling before pulling the trigger.”

        2. avatar Eddy James says:

          No matter who the target market was, young men who also join the Military. You still have a much better chance that they would run over you in their car or pickup truck, marketed to the same age group. Or beaten with the claw hammer their parents bought.

      3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Why hasn’t Remington moved to a more friendly state. Colorado threw out a case like this.

    3. avatar Veteran says:

      Fact is not all decisions made by the Supreme Court are going to be on your, mine. every other citizens side.

      I am going to venture a SWAG here and say the Supreme Court has more facts on the case then we do.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “Supreme Court has more facts on the case then we do.”

        No, it does not and cannot. SCOTUS decides matters of law, not matters of fact.

      2. avatar Merle 0 says:

        Are you sure? While courts/lawyers sometimes try to keep certain aspects of a case hush, the facts of this case a very well known and pretty well covered by the media. And if I remember correctly, (been awhile since I’ve taken a law class) I forget the terminology, but there is a rule stating the defense gets to see the evidence the prosecution has against them. I highly doubt there’s some secret evidence hidden somewhere the court is hiding, that would sink Remington in this. The court is simply ignoring the clearly written law in order to advance a political agenda. Which isn’t exactly unheard of either.

        1. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          “…there is a rule stating the defense gets to see the evidence the prosecution has against them.”

          Disclosure?

        2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          well. that would be telling.
          discovery?

        3. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          I was wrong, discovery it is…

      3. avatar CC says:

        am going to venture a SWAG here and say the Supreme Court has more facts on the case then we do

        I am going to venture a “SWAG” that you failed civics 101. SCOTUS never decides or determines facts of a case but rather applicability of the law. and all of the relevant discussion is public not private.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          How do they determine applicability of the law, if not by evaluating the facts of the case?

    4. avatar Thixotropic says:

      “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
      Thomas Jefferson, Letter to W.C. Jarvis, 1820

      “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.”
      Thomas Jefferson, 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roan

      1. avatar Ing says:

        The same problem exists with Congress, too. The question isn’t *whether* some part of the government will twist and misinterpret the Constitution, it’s which one gets to.

        If judicial review wasn’t a thing, Congress would’ve shredded the Constitution long ago. The judiciary and the administrative state are doing it now; six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

  2. avatar Shiffrod says:

    This has been a dark couple weeks. The gods must be crazy.

  3. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I want to see the headcount on this bullshit decision. Im willing to bet its all on Roberts head.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      ^ This.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Well, for one. I believe only four votes are needed to grant cert. That means at least one more sitting on his hands. They also might be waiting for a final judgement from the CT court. That could be appealed after the decision is made. It seems like a waste of time and money.

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          Kavanaugh. Remember he told Cruz his primary basis for making rulings wasn’t the Constitution, but if he liked the effect a law had had. The same standard he used in US v. Davis.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I have to assume that this (waiting for final decision from CT) is the logic behind denying cert. But to allow such a suit – that has no standing on its face under PLCAA – to go forward only serves as punishment-by-process for the protected respondent in the suit – i.e. subverting the very protection afforded by the PLCAA.

          Perhaps SCOTUS wants to weigh in on the merits of the negligent entrustment argument. But that argument in this case is absurd, since the firearm in question was never sold to the violent actor; therefore there is no basis for claiming that Remington entrusted a firearm to that violent actor, negligently or otherwise. The claim that Remington advertised an otherwise-lawful firearm in a manner that promoted or encouraged unlawful use of that firearm is equally absurd, given that the firearm was purchased by the violent actor’s mother, and the violent actor had to murder his mother in order to obtain that firearm.

          So, I can only hope that SCOTUS’s gambit here is to eviscerate whatever pretzel logic the CT courts will use to circumvent basic logic and plain reading of black-text statute.

          An innocent, private entity shouldn’t have to foot the bill to pay for that gambit, though – especially when federal statute, PLCAA, explicitly protects that entity from exactly what they’re being put through.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Phil Wilson,

          It seems like a waste of time and money.

          That is the objective. This lawsuit forces Remington to spend huge amounts of time and money defending themselves. Even if Remington wins the lawsuit, they still lose.

          This is “lawfare” (a play on the word warfare), plain and simple. Whoever is backing the suit is punishing Remington with the process. As you may have heard countless times, the process is the punishment.

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Chip Bennett,

          I completely agree with your sentiments.

          Earlier this week on the previous post about this lawsuit, I stated the very same objections. Commenter LKB explained why this lawsuit would almost certainly proceed:

          [PLCAA allows for] an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

          Since the plaintiffs are claiming that Remington violated Connecticut state laws about firearm sales/advertising, this is an allowable exception to PLCAA and the U.S. Supreme Court is obligated to allow the lawsuit to proceed.

          In a righteous and just world, the lawsuit would occur and the jury would take 90 seconds to find in favor of Remington. And the court would find that this was a frivolous lawsuit designed to punish Remington (via time/money knowing that Remington would prevail) and order the plaintiffs to pay for Remington’s expenses plus punitive damages.

        5. avatar Anymouse says:

          The SC made no decision about whether it is a proper exclusion to PLCAA. They would have had to take the case and rule against Remington for that to happen. There weren’t 4 Justices who were interested enough to hear the case, as it is in 99% of SC appeals. Unless there are contrary ruling in multiple circuits, it usually doesn’t happen. Sometimes, Justices issue a dissent to denying cert; as Thomas did in Silverster v. Becerra (CA waiting period). I am not aware of any doing it this time.

        6. avatar CC says:

          I doubt it is Kavanaugh voting against cert. This is a business related case and he loves them

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Well Duh as he is the closet Leftist.

      1. avatar Erik says:

        I think he’s out of the closet and into the streets at this point. Loud & proud wearing ass-less chaps level out of the closet.

        Not amusing, at all.

  4. avatar Ogre says:

    It looks like the Supreme Court, in denying cert to Remington Arms’ appeal and allowing a lawsuit to proceed by a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, has effectively nullified the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Since the lawsuit willl now proceed in the virulently anti-gun courts of Connecticutt, I think Remington is toast. This was a test case. Now look for similar follow-on lawsuits all over the country. Let the firearms industry beware!

  5. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    The law suit, and similar law suits that will follow will be a vehicle to bleed gun companies dry financially. Look for a lot more of these to be filed now.

    1. avatar million says:

      it’s such a broad subjective law too. no matter how you market your firearm, the Progressive Left is going to claim “hidden messages” that mass shooters detect and act on.

  6. avatar million says:

    Dyke must be thanking his lucky stars he sold Bushmaster and started up Windham.

    https://www.windhamweaponry.com/about-us/company-history/

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Well that sucks!!! Open season…I’ll keep what I got😖

  8. avatar A says:

    oh well, gun ownership was nice while it lasted…….

    1. Oh well! American Freedom was NICE while it last! Why even bother with all the niceties! Let the NWO Globalists pull out our orignial U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, and burn it publicly on the Leftist Lame-Stream media! Then THEY can just start “Red Flagging ” U.S. citizens labeled as detractors or enemies of the State…Tried by the “Ministry of SJW” and sent to the Gulags! Or WE better get off our collective @$$€$ and fight the future!

  9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    While I think SCOTUS demonstrates that they are worthless and continue to treat the second amendment as a second-class citizen (if not the red-headed step-child) of constitutionally protected rights, the language here is a bit sensationalized. SCOTUS merely denied cert to Remington’s appeal. They didn’t reject the appeal; they merely refused to hear it.

    Should SCOTUS have granted cert? Obviously. But this is just par for the course for SCOTUS ignoring the lower courts running roughshod over federal law and court precedent where the second amendment is concerned.

    This one should be a slam-dunk; but the courts are worthless.

    1. avatar Jay says:

      The chance of SCOTUS granting cert on an interlocutory appeal over a state law on advertising was highly unlikely ever. This has little to do with 2nd Amendment and everything to do with advertising speech under First.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        I disagree that this has little to do with the second amendment, when the basis of the first amendment claim (negligent entrustment) implies and assumes that the AR15 is inherently dangerous and a military firearm.

        Now, as a second amendment purist and absolutist, I understand that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect private ownership and use of the same arms with which we equip out military. But I have no confidence that SCOTUS will actually defend and uphold that intent.

        Further, allowing a decision to stand that asserts that a basic, semiautomatic carbine is “inherently dangerous” jeopardizes tens of millions of firearms, and the lawful, righteous, constitutionally protected right to own and use such firearms. Again, I do not trust SCOTUS as the bulwark to protect that right.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      This is true. It doesn’t mean that if Remington loses they won”t be able to appeal the decision to SCOTUS, it just means that they’re not stepping in before the fact. When this is all done those poor families are going to owe Remington a lot of money in legal costs.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        They cease being “poor families” when they go after the constitutionally protected rights of millions of people, and blame a manufacturer for the actions of an evil, violent psychopath. Screw them.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Well I didn’t necessarily mean ‘poor’ as in worthy of our sympathy. But when the legal battles are done they’re going to be very poor financially. Their biggest sin is being gullible enough to let con men in expensive suits tell them they’d make them rich. They’re certainly not the first people to forget about such concepts as ‘freedom’ when someone waves some money in their face. Faustian bargain at best.

      2. avatar Dude says:

        Remington better be allowed to bankrupt everyone of these losers and set an example. Frivolous lawsuits hurt everyone but the lawyers. It turns out it’s mostly former lawyers that write our rules and make judgements about this nonsense.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Lucky Gunner already set that precedent. But as long as there are lawyers willing to throw the dice with other people’s money there will be ‘victims’ gullible enough to back them.

    3. avatar GaPharmD says:

      I always appreciate your input on the legal matter Chip! Thanks for all the comments and help

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        This seems like a good time for an IANAL reminder. Remember: I’m an engineer, not a lawyer; I use engineer logic, and not lawyer logic.

        The more I think about it, the more that I think that this cert decision hinges on whether SCOTUS thought it proper to decide factual matter regarding a state statute involving a question of false/unlawful advertising; and as a 10th amendment matter, denying cert at this point in the process may have been the right decision.

  10. avatar Jay says:

    Please identify that the only part of suit permitted to go forward is whether Remington violated CT’s advertising law. All other claims and actions were dismissed by CT Supreme Court. This is far from the scary anti-gun decision it’s being made out to be.

  11. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Wow. So much for SCOTUS being on our side. They’re literally just going to ignore a standing federal law. Tyranny of the court indeed. I do not want SCOTUS hearing any gun cases. It’s apparent they seek to betray the constitution just as much as congress.

  12. avatar Don Ward says:

    Despite all the handwringing by the mouth-breathers here in the comments, this is a nothing burger of a story and a legal formality.
    This is about precedent and SCOTUS doesn’t want to meddle in individual lawsuits.
    Similarly when this case makes its way back up the courtroom food chain, it will allow precedent to be set striking down anti-2A rhetoric.
    Understanding this requires nuance and a mature understanding of politics though, which is a foreign concept for TTAG regulars.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Finally another breath of fresh air in this conservative cesspool. SCOTUS has clearly made the right rescission here supporting the families of murdered innocents. The big gun corporations are in violation of the constitution by filing our schools and streets with assault rifles and SCOTUS is finally taking steps to allow us to sue them into oblivion. After that we can start suing gun owners for owning weapons of war as it clearly is a sign of hyper masculinity and harms the collective. That behavior must be curtailed.

      1. avatar Don Ward says:

        To quote a wise man, “Eff off retard”.

        1. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          Said to ‘Miner49r’ –

          “To quote a wise man, “Eff off retard”.”

          I couldn’t have said it better myself, Mr. Ward…

          *snicker* 😉

      2. avatar dd says:

        “The big gun corporations are in violation of the constitution by filing our schools and streets with assault rifles”

        Please tell me that this is satire and you are really not that stupid

        1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          He’s a troll, don’t worry about him. He is awfully stupid though. But he just constantly baits people and talks shit on here, not worth your time.

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        “the right rescission”

        “by filing our schools”

        Again, your kindergarten spelling and grammar betrays the fraud of your posting.

        If you were going to attempt an impersonation, you really should check your spelling.

        And your rambling post are another dead giveaway, not the real miner49er, just a cheap, right wing fraud.

        Fascinating.

        1. avatar CC says:

          still waiting for you to back up your claim that US murder rate rose the past 25 years — when in fact it fell about 50%.

          Admit it: you make idiotic non factual claims here. No one is impersonating you, you are moving goal posts when corrected.

        2. avatar Ad Astra says:

          Or you were spasticly ranting via smartphone and forgot to double check your spellchecker.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Nope, never claimed murder rate up.

          It is interesting that there are those who want to emulate my post, but I always have the actual text and source.

          Such as when I pointed out that Ronald Reagan took away your gun rights on federal lands and Barack Hussein Obama restored them, I included the actual Reagan regulations and the details of the law Barack Hussein Obama signed restoring your rights.

          But I do find the amateur attempts to emulate my posts entertaining.

      4. avatar CC says:

        The big gun corporations are in violation of the constitution by filing our schools and streets with assault rifles

        Both regular homicide and multiple shooting track exactly by the number of felons on the streets of a jurisdiction, they don’t track at all to the number or type of guns.

        you can thank the left for US shootings. On average Democrat appointed judges are near twice more likely to have released on short sentence a criminal who goes onto to murder someone else.

      5. avatar Pro 2A says:

        Miner49erDouchbag- Do everyone a favor and stick one of those “weapons of war” in your cockholster.
        Enjoy the next FIVE years of Trump, loser.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Just so you know, you apparently have been fooled by a fraudulent post by some right winger, pretending to be the original Miner49er.

          Accept no substitutes, I am Miner49er.

          But I am flattered that some individual would want to copy my sparkling wit.

          Looking at the hidden motive, it’s clear that the fraudulent poster actually agrees with many of the liberal positions, and is using anonymity in order to post his true feelings without being attacked by his fellow right wing extremists.

      6. avatar TonyL says:

        Is this even a real profile? Uses all the PC buzz words, clearly not a real gun owner or Bill of Rights supporter….if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…..like the ghost written NY Time above, this poster is a probably a ghost profile, some auto bot, and it’s probably not the only one programmed to harass anything traditional or conservative or even Constitutional.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Nope, I would suggest I’ve owned a Colt SP1 longer than you’ve owned any weapon at all.

          That’s the beauty of free speech, we can hold and speak opinions that make others feel uncomfortable or downright angry, it’s right there in the constitution.

          But of course, if insulting me without any evidence brings you joy, then by all means, have at it, comrade! Simple pleasures for simple people, as grandma used to say.

  13. avatar JoinGOA,FPC,SAF says:

    What happened to that law that protects the maker not to liable for uses of its product?

  14. avatar st381183 says:

    If the plaintiffs win watch out sports car manufacturers. Every sports car marketed to the young adrenalin fueled young man then involved in a crash will now be the manufacturers fault. Amicus briefs should be filed by every manufacturer supporting Remington’s side as this opens a can of worms that will drive all out of business.

    1. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

      Look at every one of those adverts showing ‘spirited’ driving –

      ALL of them have fine print saying stuff like “Do not attempt. Professional driver on a closed course.” Etc, etc, et-fucking-cetera…

      1. avatar st381183 says:

        You are a Fudd! So you’re saying a small print disclaimer exonerates car manufacturers? I say “The Lawful Commerce in Firearms” exonerates all gun manufacturers.

        1. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          I’m not arguing that at all.

          I’m POINTING OUT every car ad showing lead-foot driving has a disclaimer on it.

          If it wasn’t necessary, why is that disclaimer there?

          Easy. They got sued and LOST.

          Tell you what – Try and buy a lawnmower that doesn’t have a marking on it saying “Do not put hands under mower when engine is running.”…

  15. avatar Jimmybob says:

    The sound you hear is your entire economy coming to a halt!

  16. avatar Barry says:

    Ban alcohol and eliminate drink driving deaths!

    1. avatar Dani in WA says:

      Amendment 28: Amendment 21 is repealed.

      1. avatar Rusty - Die Ruthie Die - Chains says:

        Yep 21 is one of the three really bad amendments, the 17th is another, and the 16th is absolutely the worst, since without that, the federal government wouldn’t have had the cash to grow into the monster that it has become with all the swamp creatures that inhabit it.

  17. avatar Hugh Janus says:

    On the other hand, SCOTUS may be letting the lawsuit proceed only to overturn it later.

    Keep in mind that the PLCAA has a couple of “loopholes” that allow lawsuits to proceed.

    They claim that Remington broke Connecticut law by violating the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act — by marketing the lethality of the rifle.

    That is the key issue of why SCOTUS did not hear the case — that the issue is a state law and they are alleging that Remington broke that law. SCOTUS wants to see how the state court rules on that claim.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      THIS. I hope I’m not just being optimistic, but I find this makes the most sense.

  18. avatar gary says:

    So does this opens up distilleries, breweries, and auto manufactures for lawsuits do to deaths caused by drinking and driving or accidents in general? It seems to me it does as this will set precedence.

    1. avatar JDH says:

      Next time a car that is marketed for being exceedingly fast like a Corvette, Ford Mustang, Camaro, Dodge Charger, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. hits somoene and kills/maims them, I hope the family sues the hell out of the manufacturer. This is a door that should not have been opened.

    2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      if everclear presented grain as way deadlier than 151, yeah.

  19. avatar LKB says:

    Everybody calm down.

    This case is about allowing a very suspect theory brought under state law under one of the explicit exceptions to PLCAA immunity to go forward. It is extremely unlikely, as the dissent pointed out, that the plaintiff’s will actually be able to adduce evidence to connect the dots in the manner required for liability. Nor is this likely to be a recurring wedge issue — most plaintiffs who try and use it will go down in flames, and will be liable for defendants’ attorneys fees. And despite all the sturm und drang, that’s what’s likely to happen on remand — there’s no way plaintiffs will be able to prove that the advertisement in question was “false,” that it caused Ms. Lanza to purchase the gun, or that it proximately caused the injuries complained of.

    The fact that the Supreme Court did not grant cert on (1) a case that turned on state law, and (2) a case that is at a preliminary (motion to dismiss) stage should surprise no one.

    Would I have liked to see the Supreme Court grant cert on this? Sure. Was it even remotely likely to happen given the procedural posture of this case? No way. Does it foreshadow anything on the Court’s attitudes toward 2A cases? No.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      The 3 things needed to win a civil lawsuit. 1) A judge allowing a case to go before the bench. 2) A reasonably good legal team. 3) A sympathetic jury. The Law has nothing to do with it. The whole point of these types of lawsuits. Is not necessarily to win but to make the fight so expensive the defendant settles for a large sum of money. The Tort system in this country is in need of a serious cleaning. It’s just another part of the bigger problem known as the Swamp.
      As I have said many times. Relying on the Courts to Protect Your Rights is a Fool’s Errand. Cleaning The Swamp while a dirty job…Must be done in order for Freedom to Survive.
      Keep Your Powder Dry.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that you never have actually been involved in serious civil litigation, much less high profile stuff.

        It’s easy to get cynical about the judicial system, but critiques like this are about at the level of the college SJW types who stridently claim that everything is the result of racism/sexism/etc. It’s intellectually lazy at best.

    2. avatar Willem Reese says:

      It would seem you’re correct, it’s too early, and everyone should just take a big breath, calm down, and wait for the proper time for the SC to rule on this (if it even actually gets that far).
      A good explanation: https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2019/11/supreme_court_d_2.php

  20. avatar Andy says:

    Can someone please explain to me how a manufacturer of a product can be held liable for the misuse of that product? Has anyone sued Ford, Kuerig, Kabar, Dell, or any other product manufacturer when someone did not use their products as intended? And, how is it Remington’s fault that the gun was stolen from the little shit’s mom? Big Brother is getting too big and needs a reckoning.

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      If this wins –its open season on your list there!

    2. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

      “Has anyone sued Ford, Kuerig, Kabar, Dell, or any other product manufacturer when someone did not use their products as intended?”

      Ford likely has been sued, that’s why you see stuff like “Do not attempt. Professional driver on a closed course” at the bottom of car ads showing driving…

    3. avatar Miner49er says:

      “In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington “published promotional materials that promised ‘military-proven performance’ for a ‘mission-adaptable’ shooter in need of the ‘ultimate combat weapons system.’ ” They also accuse the company of fostering a “lone gunman” narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”

      1. avatar Andy says:

        I see where you’re going with this, however, an advertisement does not give permission nor forgive the actions of a lunatic or anyone else for that matter. But, common sense is not common so there will be arguments made that Remington/Bushmaster did in fact give permission. We are no longer a nation of laws…we are a nation of idiots that shy from personal responsibility.

  21. avatar HP says:

    Are you a fat person? Do you also want to be rich? Now is the time to sue McDonalds! No one will save them! It’s ok to sue companies for the actions of unrelated people now! Don’t wait, sue McDonald’s today! It’s their fault, after all.

  22. avatar OBOB says:

    Ohh the can of worms that was opened

    so if this wins fully

    a sports car crashes into me going 1 mile over the limit and I can sue the car maker for MILLIONS because they had commercials of the car speeding on tracks and going high speed on streets!

    Porsche, Ferrari, GM, subaru, toyota, Nissian might as well pay me right now!

  23. avatar Hannibal says:

    The highest court in the land deciding that laws don’t matter. Great.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      No. The highest court in the land declining to take a case that is procedurally unripe and turns on a state law issue. They do it every day.

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    What did you expect? SCOTUS is part of the same conspiracy as the rest of government. And yes, I am a lawyer.

  25. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    But but but…. Trump was supposed to nominate 2A friendly justices!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaa!

    Going to enjoy reading your responses to this one… cucks

    1. avatar Don Ward says:

      I love how this cuck hasn’t actually read the decision and is going off of what CNN and the other corporate media sites’ headlines.
      Low energy troll.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Hasn’t read the decision? What decision? SCOTUS has issued no decision.

        There is only today’s Order of the Court, indicating that SCOTUS has denied cert to the pending case.

        If you’re going to drag people, at least have your facts straight.

        1. avatar Don Ward says:

          In other words you’ve read nothing about this case and are only reading the headlines.
          Now go away and sit in the corner and keep your yap closed while the grownups are talking.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    2. avatar CC says:

      @ Tex300BLK,
      You just proved you did not read the article.
      which Trump appointed justice voted to deny cert in this case?

      Trump has appointed about 150 federal judges so far, they are widely and universally considered the most 2A friendly judges in the past 100 years.

  26. avatar TurboCooler says:

    This is how they took out big tobacco. A case over advertisement. The reason SCOTUS allowed it is because the case is about the Advertisement not about anything else.

    1. avatar Pro 2A says:

      Big Tabacco NEEDED to be “taken out”. F them. Society shouldn’t suffer second hand smoke and health care costs due the stupidity and greed related to Tabacco.

      1. avatar TonyL says:

        Considering they added highly addictive nicotine to keep people using their products, I agree. But you can make similar arguments for alcohol. Should alcohol be targeted as well?

        1. avatar Drdbiggs says:

          Did not add nicotine (natural substance found in tobacco) but added ammonia which increased nicotine absorption and amplified the effects.

          Ammonia is also used to boost the impact of nicotine in manufactured cigarettes. In the landmark Minnesota Tobacco Trial of 1998, a number of facts about how tobacco companies manipulated cigarette ingredients in a way to speed and intensify nicotine addiction for consumers were made public.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Correct.

        And individuals rights do not include the right to poison my atmosphere, or my children’s atmosphere that they need to breathe and be healthy.

        And yes, smoking cigarettes around children is child abuse with risk of injury.

        1. avatar TonyL says:

          Your arguments are more than a stretch. Where is the data that smoking measurably increases air pollution? I’m not joking. Using your “logic”, vehicles, planes, nearly every electricity producing power plant would creat much more “child abuse” than all casual smokers combined. Your argument is based 100% on political correctness and is not remotely scientifically accurate.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Friend, the data is in, cigarette smoke causes cancer.

          “ Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.1,2,3,4

          Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.1

          There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

          Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1,4
          Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually.4
          Some of the health conditions caused by secondhand smoke in adults include coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer.1,4”

          Yes, that’s from the CDC, I’m sure you may believe that’s part of the Zionist occupied government. Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette…

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          The Cleveland clinic:

          “In addition, the longer you are around secondhand smoke, the greater the level of harmful substances in your body. As a result, you might have an increased risk of developing smoking-related disorders, including:

          Lung cancer and lung disease, including COPD, emphysema, asthma, and chronic bronchitis. Nonsmokers who live with a smoker have a 20% to 30% increased risk for developing lung cancer.
          Heart disease
          Eye and nasal irritation; increased risk of sinus and respiratory infections”

  27. avatar borg says:

    Perhaps SCOTUS will regret this if this case encourages victims of car accidents to sue liquor companies and car manufacturers.

  28. avatar PeeGee-2 says:

    Yet we still can’t Sue Vaccine manufacturers despite their products killing thousands of children…. It’s all about the kids….and you guys thought they were going to let you keep your firearms😂😂😂😂

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Actually no one can really take our firearms if we don’t want them to. We have to voluntarily surrender them.

  29. avatar Mercutio says:

    This is the “lawfare” alternative to confiscation. Drive the makers out of business.

    1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

      Of course the police and government contracts will still exist with the proper credentials, but unfortunately, the power to decide compelling need for individuals will rest with the State.

  30. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    So the alcohol and car companies are next..right?

  31. avatar Rusty - Die Ruthie Die - Chains says:

    I would like to know who voted for cert and who did not. This should not have been allowed to go forward. We need another couple of the leftist members of the court to move on.

    At least the Alabama US Senate race is going to rip one Democrat out by the roots since Doug Jones has no chance of beating Jeff Sessions.

  32. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    Smart move by SCOTUS. Get it out there and put it to bed once and for all.

  33. avatar sound awake says:

    every firearm manufacturer that has manufactured a firearm that has been used illegally is going to get sued now
    thanks scotus
    youve worn out your usefulness
    this is the reason you were supposed to be the weakest of the 3 branches
    because youre unelected and serve for life
    hamilton wasnt right about everything but he was right about this

  34. avatar Stephen Osterday says:

    Automakers, knife makers, even boat builders ought to be petrified with this ruling. They could be next in line for a lawsuit with that kind of logic.
    Folks, American as we knew it is gone.

  35. avatar Dale says:

    Does anyone know what kind of drugs this guy was on. Was he seeing a Dr. for his mental state. I have been looking at the amount of mass shooting that have gone on since Columbine and found that 85%-90% of the shootings, the shooter was on some type of behavior pill. Prescribed by a Dr.. The side affects can range from anger, suicidal, hate, and depression with other conditions. You seen on the commercials the side affects these pills have. It is not the gun it is the person that commits the crime. #InvestigatePsychDrugs

  36. avatar quartermast says:

    Countersuit by Remington to make the plaintiffs/losers pay for all legal and Court costs of all sides, immediately upon the lawsuit decision.

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