Remington Appeals Connecticut Court’s Sandy Hook Lawsuit Ruling to the US Supreme Court

Newtown Sandy Hook Shooting Gun Maker lawsuit appeal

A Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, the same make and model of gun used by Adam Lanza in the December 2012 Sandy Hook School shooting (AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)

In March, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling throwing out a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook parents and a survivor against Remington Arms, the maker of the rifle used in the massacre. The lower court dismissed the suit against the gunmaker because of the provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The state Supreme Court ruled that suit could go forward.

Now, however, Remington has appealed the Connecticut court’s ruling to the US Supreme Court.

The PLCAA protects makers and sellers of firearms whose products are subsequently used in the commission of a crime. As has been well-established, the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting was legally sold to Adam Lanza’s mother. It was then stolen by her son who used it to murder her before attacking the school.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, have looked for a way around the PLCAA by arguing (and the state Supreme Court was persuaded) by basing their suit on an alleged violation of a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

The lawsuit said that the companies were wrong to entrust an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield. Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.

Here’s the AP’s report . . .

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal Thursday of a state ruling against the company.

Remington Arms, based in Madison, North Carolina, cited a much-debated 2005 federal law that shields firearms manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

Gunman Adam Lanza opened fire at the Newtown, Connecticut, school with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle on Dec. 14, 2012, killing 20 first graders and six educators. The 20-year-old gunman earlier shot his mother to death at their Newtown home, and killed himself as police arrived at the school. The rifle was legally owned by his mother.

A survivor and relatives of nine victims filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public and alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.

Citing one of the few exemptions in the federal law, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in March that Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle to the public. The decision overturned a ruling by a trial court judge who dismissed the lawsuit based on the 2005 federal law, named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The federal law has been criticized by gun control advocates as being too favorable to gun makers, and it has been used to bar lawsuits over other mass killings.

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

“Congress enacted the (law) to ensure that firearms — so central to American society that the Founders safeguarded their ownership and use in the Bill of Rights — would be regulated only through the democratic process rather than the vagaries of litigation,” Remington lawyers Scott Keller and Stephanie Cagniart wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the victims’ families, disagreed with Remington’s claims.

“Our state’s highest court has already ruled that the families deserve their day in court and we are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will defer to that well-reasoned opinion,” Koskoff said in a statement.

With President Donald Trump’s nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh now on the court, conservatives are firmly in control as the justices take on divisive issues such as gun control abortion, and LGBT rights.

comments

  1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    It’s ludicrous to hold a manufacturer of a legally-produced, legally-sold product responsible for how some nutjob misuses it, or we’d be suing all the car manufacturers for drunk driving deaths.

    The process is the punishment. The fact that our court system allows clearly frivolous suits to proceed so far at such great expense is terrible.

    1. avatar Spudnik says:

      I think the issue is how the gun was marketed and who the target audience was for the advertising campaign. If a car maker indicated in their ad that their car was easier to drive when drunk than other cars even though drunk driving was illegal, then there is merit to the case.

      Bushmaster had a rather aggressive testosterone fueled ad campaign that was suggestive of the very things we claim are the same across all rifles. But we all know really are not.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        Some Car ads are aggressive as well. No one needs a 300hp car to travel to work. (/sarc)

        The average person turned into johnny race car driver.

        and if a drunk was speeding..well there you go.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I like the woman’s face in the article pic above. It’s like she’s looking at the camera and saying, “well, I have no idea how to use this thing.”

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          I Haz a Question – I always read it as “I can’t believe I’m part of this crap show”, but I guess it could be both

        3. avatar billy-bob says:

          S/he looks a bit old to be a private.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        How about ads for Dodge cars that accentuate speed and performance? If a street racer driving a Dodge is involved in a crash, should Dodge be sued?
        To be more specific, if the racer is driving a Hellcat, should Dodge be sued?

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          There were calls to sue Dodge after that idiot Nazi murdered a fat Communist with his ride, a couple years back.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          “Should Dodge be sued?” Using their logic, we can’t trust untrained civilians with such powerful and dangerous vehicles. So every prospective buyer of a performance vehicle would have to prove to the manufacturer that they are capable of handling such a vehicle. I guess we also need the buyers of dually trucks to prove they can properly tow trailers. Oh, and hybrid and electric vehicle purchasers would have to prove they aren’t douchebags.

          I hope Bushmaster can counter sue, not just for direct expenses, but for overall damage to their reputation.

        3. avatar dph says:

          Dude,
          “Oh, and hybrid and electric vehicle purchasers would have to prove they aren’t douchebags.”
          Sorry, this is not possible, because they are douchebags. Even worse most are posturing, self-congratulatory Democrat douchebags.

        4. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          “…Oh, and hybrid and electric vehicle purchasers would have to prove they aren’t douchebags…

          Ok that’s funny lol. I put lime green VW beetles with eyelash headlights in same category.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Automobiles have many legitimate uses, both personal and in commerce.

          Training and competence testing are all part of the process to be allowed to drive automobiles on public thoroughfares.

          A.R. 15’s are marketed exclusively as devices designed to kill many people quickly. The manufactures of these products have a much higher standard required for their promotion and marketing of their products, because the potential for harm is much greater.

          The problem isn’t personal ownership of firearms, it’s the hyper masculinity and the glorification of guns by the manufacturers that has caused the problem.

          One can buy dynamite in most states, with only ID. Yet dynamite manufacturers are smart enough not to market their product through the same techniques that bushmaster and others have used.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The problem isn’t personal ownership of firearms, it’s the hyper masculinity and the glorification of guns by the manufacturers that has caused the problem.”

          Do we have any research regarding this? Especially regarding the shooter in this incident?

          Courts can review an issue, and publish sweeping orders based on the matter before the bar. Courts cannot yet take a general assumption about the future action of a specific demographic, and issue sweeping orders based on what may, somehow, some way, one day result in an action that will cause in that demographic a specific outcome.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          A.R. 15’s are marketed exclusively as devices designed to kill many people quickly.

          Bovine excrement. Show just one example of such marketing.

        8. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Miner49er

          “A.R. 15’s are marketed exclusively as devices designed to kill many people quickly.”

          You win the dumbest thing said on TTAG today. I haven’t seen the entire internet, but you’re definatley in the running to win that one too.

        9. avatar jwm says:

          Miner. I want to thank you in advance for making Trump an 8 year president. You and vlad are some of our best support for his second term.

        10. avatar jwm says:

          P.S. miner49er. I don’t have to have any training or testing to buy a car. Just the funds. I can buy a tank without anything but cash.

        11. avatar dph says:

          I’d make a bet that miner49er drives a Prius with a Co-exist sticker in the back window.

        12. avatar Big Bill says:

          Miner49er says:
          “Training and competence testing are all part of the process to be allowed to drive automobiles on public thoroughfares.”
          Training? You must be thinking of places like Japan, where actual training by a licensed instructor is required in order to get a license. Not so much here in the US.
          Competence testing? Also, not so much. With over 30k deaths per year from driving “accidents” it’s a real stretch to say there actually any such testing.

          “A.R. 15’s are marketed exclusively as devices designed to kill many people quickly.”
          Such lies are beneath even you. Yes, I just called you a liar. Deal with it.

          “One can buy dynamite in most states, with only ID.”
          Another lie, one that shows you don’t even know how to check on your own notions to see if they are right.
          It takes a license to buy explosives.

          You are right up there with most anti-gunners in your disregard not only for the truth, but for yourself, as well. You constantly show your ass in public, and continue to do so. Before you can respect others, you must first respect yourself, but you constantly show that you can’t do that.

      3. avatar James Campbell says:

        Calling BS on this comparison.

        Automobile marketing groups show their products doing all sorts of dangerous/deadly activities in the ads.

        Does this mean I can sue them?

        Don’t respond with the “closed course, pro driver” disclaimers in the auto ads. With that logic a “don’t kill people” disclaimer SHOULD silence critics of firearm ad content.

      4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Unless Bushmaster marketed the AR15 for unlawful purposes/acts, this argument is moot. Fullstop.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Bingo. Even if they say it’s better for defense, or even human targets in general, that’s not the same at all as saying it’s better for murder.

          You’d think Pharmaceutical companies would be funding Remington’s defense and then some, because the implications for their industry are *incredibly* obvious. Punish a pill-mill for off-label uses & criminal acts of the buyers? Not happening.

        2. avatar dph says:

          Oh, but it is happening, drug companies are getting sued even as we speak over misuse of their products.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Hi, Chip. Long time, no read.

          Thinking that maybe the obvious is not the issue. If the plaintiff lawyers are smart, they would shape their arguments so at to get something in the ruling, or ancillary opinions, that AR style weapons are “weapons of war”; not something contemplated by the founders as being permitted.

          If the plaintiffs can get any favorable opinion regarding “weapons of war”, 2A will soon be overturned without benefit of a constitutional amendment; holy grail of the anti-gun wackos.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If the plaintiffs can get any favorable opinion regarding “weapons of war”, 2A will soon be overturned without benefit of a constitutional amendment; holy grail of the anti-gun wackos.

          The second amendment was written specifically with “weapons of war” in mind.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The second amendment was written specifically with “weapons of war” in mind.”

          True, but history and tradition….

          Note that in none of the SC rulings on 2A, in over a hundred years, declares that “weapons of war” to be used against government is at the heart of 2A. Even the ruling about sawed-off shotguns declares that such are not weapons of war, because no one had seen such a weapon used on the battlefield. The SC is horribly conflicted regarding the people holding the government at bay through private ownership of firearms.

          So, if any of the Nine would write something restricting 2A to self-defense with handguns, and hunting with rifles, even an actual adverse ruling would be a “win”.

          Overall, I suspect the SC will refuse the cert.

        6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Not when you put a few crying mother’s on the stand. Monsanto got nailed for $200+ million for a product that doesn’t cause cancer when someone claimed with no evidence whatsoever other than that he claimed he used to soak himself in it on a regular basis that it caused his. You put this stuff in front of a jury and just about anything can happen, which is why the 2A haters are desperate to find a loophole in the law.

      5. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        1. Bushmaster didn’t sell this gun to the killer, nor did any retailer sell it to the killer. So their marketing tactics are irrelevant to this case.

        2. The marketing in question allegedly invoked combat and declared “Comsider your man card reissued.” So? Murdering school children in Connecticut has nothing to do with combat. That would actually be a war crime and violation of combat rules.

        3. Marketing speech is 1st amendment protected free speech. Man card is obvious hyperbole in itself. To whatever extent it is “reissued”, that only applies to the purchase and ownership of the rifle, not to illegal acts committed with it.

        This suit is beyond frivolous. It’s gross abuse of judicial power. Those 4 state SC justices ought to be thrown off the bench.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Marketing/commercial speech is not entitled to the same level of protection under the First Amendment as individual/political speech, and is subject to governmental regulation. So the argument does not fly.

          But you are correct that there is a lack of a causational connection between the advertising and Adam Lanza since he did not purchase the rifle but stole it. The only reason that the Conn Supreme Court could overlook this issue was that it was not presented on the motion for summary judgment filed by Remington, which only argued that the conduct alleged fell within the scope of the immunity. They could still prevail at trial on the lack of causation, but just do not wish to risk it. Juries can be quite rational, and quite irrational, just like judges, in a given case.

      6. avatar Pete says:

        So a car or motorcycle ad that features scantily clad women would be responsible for a kidnapping or rape using that model vehicle?

      7. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        “If a car maker indicated in their ad that their car was easier to drive when drunk than other cars even though drunk driving was illegal, then there is merit to the case.”

        Considering how some cars today actually *are* easier to drive when drunk (looking at *you*, Tesla and GM), this will open up a very interesting can-of-worms.

        (John Wick would never drive impaired He would train his new puppy to drive…)

      8. avatar DDay says:

        In this case specifically, the marketing by Bushmaster is not a factor at all regardless because adam lanza never bought the gun, he stole it.

        SCOTUS will reverse this moronic rule by the CT court.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Technically, that issue was not presented for determination by the Remington motion, so SCOTUS probably won’t reach it either.

      9. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        So all those ads with “Professional driver. Do not attempt this yourself.” disclaimers aren’t promoting dangerous behavior? Total garbage.

        suggestive of the very things we claim are the same across all rifles. But we all know really are not.

        What do I know really is not the same? I don’t accept your generalization. There’s literally nothing a Bushmaster AR-15 can do that can’t be done by any number of other guns, including many less “evil-looking” ones.

        The reason that AR’s are so popular: Public domain design (this is probably the single biggest thing),ergonomics, easy to work on, easy to find aftermarket parts and accessories — those all have nothing to do with how deadly the rifle is.

      10. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Regardless of advertising, we are all responsible for our own actions, period.

      11. avatar SomeDudeThatHasAnAssloadOfGreentip says:

        It’s still a bullshit argument. It is no different than the way that Dodge markets the Challenger, or how recruitment for the Marine Corps is marketed.

        Just because the Challenger is marketed like it is, doesn’t mean than when you buy one you become all that is man. It means you now own an overweight muscle car, that gets terrible fuel economy, and is abysmal as far as how it looks. It doesn’t make you all that it man, it confirms that you have zero practicality and horrible decision making skills.

        Also do we blame McDonald’s for how they contribute to obesity and diabetes increases in this country? Do we sue Bic for people not understanding the grammatical rule of “I before e except after c?” Do we litigate Planter’s out of existence, because peanuts being eaten within proximity of someone that has an allergy can cause someone’s throat to swell shut?

        The short answer to all of the above is, fuck no.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          The best defense to the plaintiff’s argument is that it equates being issued a “man card” (becoming a soldier) with becoming a child murderer. I haven’t heard that argument since the Vietnam War.

      12. avatar Mark Davis says:

        You are full of crap!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          @in response to Spudnik:

          “You are full of crap!”

          Well, that really illuminates the conversation.

      13. avatar JW says:

        If the ads were clearly inciting murderous actions of the kind taken then there *might* be a point to the case. As the ads did nothing of the sort then an honest judge should tell them to go pound sand.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      We’re seeing the consequences of politicization. Once it starts anything can be defined as anything else. In this case a completely illogical “weapons of war” argument was used by a state Supreme Court! Of course the judges should have known better but what’s important is that they didn’t. When this happens, justice and the impartial rule of law goes out the window. You might as well as go to trial in Pakistan.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Ehhh…we don’t know much about Newtown except 28 died. Just what “they” told us(yeah kid’s and teacher’s died). And until LasVegas it was the most covered up crime since JFK was murdered. Good luck Remington!!!

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      You really think it’s far-fetched that a paranoid nut-bar with access to guns went on a killing spree once he found out he was about to be committed to an institution for the rest of his life? You can’t just refuse to believe *any* of the information supplied by authorities, then claim they covered up the whole affair (at least not without a bunch of evidence pointing to a parallel chain of events). They bulldozed the school because it was old & shitty, and this shooting generated all the sympathy they’d need to fund a new one. They didn’t release photos of a bunch of dead elementary school kids, because they contained a bunch of dead elementary school kids. The initial coverage was wildly inaccurate because the media are ignorant morons & loose cannons. There’s really no ‘conspiracy’ necessary, apart from using the horrible crime to promote law & consequences against people who had nothing to do with the incident or even its circumstances.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I refuse to believe a 100% fatality rate in any attack. Somebody fucked up.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          He was shooting small kids packed into small rooms with a rifle. And the police gave him plenty of time and the kids that maybe could have survived their injuries didn’t get help in time, thanks to the police.

          Most conspiracy theories, by a large majority, simply ignore the ability of human beings to fuck up on a grand scale.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          “the kids that maybe could have survived their injuries didn’t get help in time, thanks to the police.”

          Yeah… That’s what pisses me off, there is zero accountability in this regard.

        3. avatar barnbwt says:

          He also was only able to get into a couple classrooms after teachers locked & barricaded the doors IIRC. You’d have seen 100% fatality in the VA Tech shooting if that guy had had more time, rifle, & ammo, as well.

          Unless you don’t believe in 100% fatality rate for coup de gras head shots with 5.56. By all accounts the Newtown guy was basically admiring his handiwork around the time he killed himself, he wasn’t still actively shooting victims (which is probably why the police finally decided to move in, during the lull, like they always seem to in these things)

        4. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          To jwm

          +++++++++++++++++++Quote He was shooting small kids packed into small rooms with a rifle. And the police gave him plenty of time and the kids that maybe could have survived their injuries didn’t get help in time, thanks to the police.

          Most conspiracy theories, by a large majority, simply ignore the ability of human beings to fuck up on a grand scale.+++++++++++++++++++++quote

          As usual you post before you research. Landza committed suicide the minute he saw the police running towards the school building. The police were only 2 miles away. They arrived in less than 3 minutes. Proving how many innocent people can be killed by high capacity assault rifles in only 3 minutes.

          The NRA and the Myth of the 20-Minute Police Response Time at Sandy Hook
          02/05/2013 11:31 am ET Updated Apr 07, 2013
          The National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, gestures during a news conference in response to the
          The National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, gestures during a news conference in response to the Connecticut school shooting on Friday, Dec. 21, 2012 in Washington. The nation’s largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer “waiting in the wings.” (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
          Appearing on Fox News Sunday this week, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre was pressed about the controversial ad the group created in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre that referenced the armed protection President Obama’s daughters receive.

          Even as host Chris Wallace belittled as “ridiculous” the ad’s premise that all children deserve the same kind of protection that the president’s children have, LaPierre defend the ad and said, “Tell that to the people of Newtown.”

          REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
          Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
          Support HuffPost
          “So they should have Secret Service”? Wallace asked.

          In response, LaPierre propagated a favorite falsehood of the pro-gun media lobby [emphasis added]:

          LAPIERRE: No, but what they should have is police officers or certified armed security in those schools to keep people safe. If something happens, the police time — despite all their good intentions, is 15 to 20 minutes. It’s too long. It’s not going to help those kids.

          In the wake of the Newtown shooting, LaPierre bemoaned the fact kids aren’t safe at school, in part because it takes police 15 to 20 minutes to respond to a deadly shooting like the one in Connecticut.

          But that’s not true and it’s time the news media start calling out anti-gun control extremists like LaPierre and Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, among others, who keep peddling the obvious falsehood in the press.

          Fact: The Newtown police station is located approximately two miles from the Sandy Hook Elementary School. There’s no way it would have taken law enforcement 20 minutes to respond to the first 911 calls reporting gunfire at the school. (Local cops could have run from the station and been at the school in less than 20 minutes.)

          Fast-acting Newtown officers “made it in under three minutes, arriving in the parking lot while gunfire could still be heard,” according to New York Times interviews with the first responders that day.

          But if you listen to LaPierre as well as other anti-gun control advocates who are making the media rounds, you’re led to believe gunman Adam Lanza roamed the hallways of Sandy Hook for nearly half an hour, killing people at will before law enforcement finally arrived; that terrified teachers and students were “waiting 20 minutes for the cops to show up,” as one pro-gun blogger claimed.

          It’s not true. The claim is pure gun lobby propaganda.

          The frightening specter of defenselessness is projected to boost the NRA’s claim that the only way to combat gun violence in school is not to control the sale and distribution of guns, but to put armed policemen in 98,000 schools in America. Other gun advocates use the phony 20-minute premise to bolster calls for allowing concealed weapons in schools.

          Since the December 14 massacre, the 20-minute myth has been widely repeated among right-wing media outlets.

          • “It took the police 20 minutes to arrive at Sandy Hook. By the time they got there, it was over. [National Review Online]

          • “In the short run, stopping the next Sandy Hook means ending the deadly policy which gave the killer 20 minutes (until people with guns, the police, finally arrived) to fire 150 shots and repeatedly change magazines, murdering at leisure.” [Volokh.com]

          Unfortunately, the 20-minute myth got an early boost from CNN.com, which posted an inaccurate timeline of the school massacre. CNN’s faulty claim that first responders arrived at Sandy Hook “about twenty minutes after the first” 911 calls was quickly embraced by right-wing bloggers who mocked the police’s slow response time.

          But that single, erroneous report certainly can’t justify the continued misuse of the 20-minute myth, since the vast majority of Newtown reports got the facts right. Contrary to CNN timeline, it was widely reported last December that police and first responders arrived at the Newtown crime scene “instantaneously,” “within minutes” of the first 911 call, and “minutes after the assassin began his rampage.”

          And two days after the shooting rampage, audio from Newtown police scanners was made public. It confirmed that officers were reporting back from the school just a few minutes after the first school calls came into the dispatcher that day.

          Still, the 20-minute myth serves a political purpose, so people like factually challenged gun extremist Larry Pratt have used the concocted claim repeatedly in the media:

          • “The solution is for people to be able to defend themselves at the point of the crime and not wait for 20 minutes for the police come after everybody is dead.” [Dec. 18, CNN]

          • “And Newtown was the same, a school where nobody was able to have a gun, even if they had a concealed carry permit, which you can get in Connecticut. Nobody was able to shoot back. They had to wait some 20 minutes for the police to get there. That’s unacceptable.” [Dec. 28, Fox]

          • “Especially if you’re telling the potential victim you can’t be armed. You have to wait for the Cavalry to get here five, 10 or in the case of Newtown 20 minutes later. I find that unconscionable.” [Jan. 12, CNN]

          • “Well, the armed teacher is going to have a lot more chance stopping a mass murderer than the police who take 20 minutes to get there, as they did in Newtown, and that’s not an extraordinarily long response time.” [Jan. 17, Australia Broadcasting Corporation]

          Pratt’s sinister assertion is pure fabrication. If gun advocates continue to peddle the lie, it’s up to journalists to call them on it. The falsehood purposefully hinders attempts to debate the pressing issue of gun violence, and serves an insult to the Newtown police officers on duty that dark day in December.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          vlad, the obvious troll. Or rather, should I say, which vlad are you? At what point do you think or believe that your obvious ramblings inspired by your pay from kapo bloomberg should be listened to by sensible folk?

          You and your kind have enabled all these mass shootings by making it impossible for the victims to fight back. Your hands are covered in the blood of the victims.

          Thankfully the people are seeing through the charade you fascist monsters put up. Trump will be a shoo in for 2020 thanks in no small part to guys like you and miner49er.

        6. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to jwm

          quote————————–vlad, the obvious troll. Or rather, should I say, which vlad are you?———————–quote

          Typical denizen of the Far Right. You hate freedom of speech and anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Hitler would have made you one of his Lieutenants.

          Oh and by the way if you had any grey matter between your ears you would have already figured out that I am the original Vlad from my moniker. The fake has none.

        7. avatar jwm says:

          Moniker? Dude there are at least 2 of you now. How do we know you ain’t both? How do we know you’re the real vlad? Anybody could get a ‘moniker’ and claim to be you.

          But again. Thanks for making Trumps second term a shoo in you fascist blood dancer.

      2. avatar former water walker says:

        DUH…never said any of that Barnbwt. Reading is fundamental. The dumbocrats wanted to ban everything and we were just supposed to agree-because “guns”. THIS was where old Wayne shined. Now not so much…I stand by what I typed!

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Read what you wrote, and tell me it isn’t “truther-ey.” You said nothing about gun control, and suggested that the info we were told about the attack was not accurate, because “they” were lying about it as a coverup.

          I’m convinced that Wayne only took a ‘hardline’ stance (is “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” really even something we should consider ‘hardline,’ or is it simple truth & common sense, that was only notable because it is generally absent in the NRA’s stances?) is because he had already been assured that the divided congress would not be passing anything of substance. Compare that to Parkland, where the NRA was supposedly truly concerned that a number of RNC Quislings would give the DNC a gun control victory, at which point they adopted the gun control stance of banning bump stocks, raising the purchase age to 21, & passing red flags themselves so the Dems couldn’t claim it as a win before the elections (derp).

  3. avatar million says:

    Won’t the families that bring the lawsuit have to pay Remington’s court costs?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… it’ll be a cold day in hell before those sub-human commie leeches pay $1 of what they owe.

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Pwrserge is right, Bloomberg etal pays the lawyers and when the lawsuit is eventually dismissed the Anti-Constitutionalists disappear, and the plaintiffs (dummies who fell for it) are left holding the bag. The plaintiffs then declare bankruptcy and walk away from the debt.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Which is why we need to have not just the plaintiff, but their attorney responsible for court costs.

  4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    “With President Donald Trump’s nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh now on the court, conservatives are firmly in control as the justices take on divisive issues such as gun control abortion, and LGBT rights, damnit.

    FIFY, AP

    Also, the legal argument around PLCAA is utterly ludicrous. If SCOTUS doesn’t act, federal law might as well be rendered impotent.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      The claim in the suit or this claim in any suit is incredibly poor and comical.

      But in this case it’s even worse. They claim Bushmaster marketed the gun in a certain way, blah blah. But adam lanza never bought the gun, he killed his mother and stole it. So whatever the marketing, it was not a factor at all.

      There are joke lawsuits all the time but this was is among the biggest jokes.

  5. avatar barnbwt says:

    Ban carry-handle sights & triangular front sight bases!

    1. avatar Mason says:

      I view the AR-style rifles and pistols as the inevitable development of firearms in an evolutionary sense. We have an assembly of the best trends in rifle design that any shooter would ever want. Light weight, vented barrel shield (forearm), adjustable stock, easy mounting system for accessories (rails, etc.), fast action response, unlimited capacity, easy disassembly for packing up, a carrying handle, scope capable, rust-proof finish, and light but effective loads. It’s a target shooter’s dream, a hunter’s dream, and a plinker’s dream. Many of these features have been used by Olympic shooting competitors for 70 years, and with today’s plastic composites are now finding their way down to a hunter’s level of affordability. There is nothing which distinguishes the AR-15 style rifle from those used by competition shooters except the amount of attachable accessories permitted, trigger weight, and a “forward assist” jam-button. Ever since GLOCK started making polymers reliable on handguns, it paved the way forward for using polymers on rifles as well. Vented shields were used in WWII, as were carrying handles. And that myth of making the rifle fully automatic with a “bump stock?” You can do the same trick with a rubber band. Yes, a less-than-a-penny rubber band. So go ahead and defy evolution. Make possession of rubber bands illegal. I’ll used the belt-loops on my pants instead, same difference.

  6. avatar D says:

    So marketing effects which gun a thief and murderer will choose in order to kill his mother and commit mass murder?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Has it been proven that this guy ever viewed such marketing?

  7. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

    So what these robed clowns are saying is it’s really illegal to sell that rifle even though no statute was passed, but because they said so.

    Have I missed something here?

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    If they marketed it as a mass shooting gun in schools not only would they be liable they would be called out for it. And no one would glorify killing like that, that’s Hollywood and the game business jobs.

  9. avatar Dan says:

    They’re arguing Remington is responsible because of marketing but how do they know that Adam Lanza ever even saw those ads? Throw this crap out.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      He stole the guns also, so the marketing is irrelevant.

  10. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

    Ok using same logic, lets hold the Democrat Party responsible for the violence Antifa commits !

  11. avatar OBOB says:

    This is where Remington and LOTS of AR15 and the like makers FRICKED UP big time…ads that show SEAL’s or ‘operators’ using a gun like theirs in combat and saying things like “combat tested for you” or same….shines a bad light on all guns made…morons

    “”””The lawsuit said that the companies were wrong to entrust an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield. Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.”””””””””””””

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      No, that’s just dumb, and letting the left perpetuate that framing is idiotic. Touting that something is combat-tested is by no means advocating criminal use of that item. That’s a hill worth dying on … (militaristic phrasing intended).

  12. avatar kap says:

    Lawyers for mommy & Daddy are blood Dancers who in the pursuit of the almighty buck take immorality, greed, and lies too a different level.

  13. avatar john says:

    Loving all these lower court decsions against our 2a rights. Keep it coming!

    18-280 is going to be the first win…then we have NJ 10 round limit that was just upheld and will be appealed to the supreme court and then we have this new gem above. Heh, the fools haven’t learned that them winning in lower courts is now a losing proposition as the highest court in the land is being provided plenty of ammunition to permanently bury the anti community and their attacks on our rights.

    As Mr. Clarence Thomas put it in his dissenting opinion for a case the court refused to hear “…the Second Amendment is a “disfavored right” and the Supreme Court’s “constitutional orphan.” ” In a matter of years this will no longer be the case. I can feel the anti squirming in their boots.

  14. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

    So, what’s the timeline on when we should hear something?

    If the decision includes a written opinion, it could be some insight as to the Court’s mood on gun rights in general.

    (John Wick would prefer Justice Clarence Thomas to write a blistering opinion, with a sleeping puppy on his lap…)

    1. avatar DDay says:

      My guess is this will be like the stun gun case from Masschusetts where they was not trial, they just issued a one page decision unanimously dismissing the state supreme court decision and sending the case back to them. Basically reversing them and saying you f’ed up, change your ruling and reverse it.

      This is a nothing case and SCOTUS knows it.

  15. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    So the decision came in MARCH and Remington waited until AUGUST to appeal? Where did their lawyers go to school? Northwest Southeast Louisiana Tech Lawyer & Agriculture College?

    Should have had the appeal on file with the Supreme Court by the end of the next business day.

  16. avatar Jim from LI says:

    I’ve seen M-16s in video games but I was never able to make out “Bushmaster” or any other brand name on them. Does Remington have a video game division? Any good titles?

  17. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Spudnik, that is why Ford used to have double -sided keys, so it could be stuck in the ignition with either side up. Sarcastically I will ask when Remington because a retail seller to the general public? If this allowed to go forward we should sue a car maker for selling to persons charged with a DUI.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Why aren’t we conducting background checks on vehicle purchases? There would need to be a question about smoking pot. If you answer yes, sorry, no vehicle for you.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        We do conduct background checks on the operators of motor vehicles, and if you violate the law you can lose your license to operate said motor vehicle.

        And motor vehicles are required to be registered and licensed and no person is permitted to operate a motor vehicle until they have had training and a competency test to prove safe operation.

        The operation of motor vehicles is continuously monitored through the use of traffic cams, radar and trained observer’s conducting surveillance on the nations highways.

        And while you can kill people with automobiles, it’s rather difficult to rack up a high toll.

        Actually, I’d say most Americans would be satisfied with a regulatory regime for guns similar to the one we already have for automobiles.

        But I would suspect that most POTG would have much problem with the regulatory scheme for automobiles beinging applied to firearms.

        1. avatar Kenneth S Carter says:

          “And while you can kill people with automobiles, it’s rather difficult to rack up a high toll.”

          Tell that to the people in Nice, France.

          “On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others.”

        2. avatar jwm says:

          I can buy an automobile, or a tank for that matter, without testing or training.

          But again, thank you for making Trumps second term that much easier.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Actually, I’d say most Americans would be satisfied with a regulatory regime for guns similar to the one we already have for automobiles.”

          Only if everyone everyone is required to register and undergo a background check for each and every human, civil and natural right protected by the constitution….one Right at a time.

        4. avatar KENNETH S CARTER says:

          Will everyone over 16.5 years old be allowed to have one?
          Can we possess them in every state?
          Will licenses be “shall issue” as they are with cars?

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Can we possess them in every state?”

          There would need to be two levels of civil rights registration: federal and state. Everyone who moves to a different state would be required to undergo a new registration and background check for each federal of state Right intended to be exercised. The permission to exercise rights in a state would be “shall” or “may” dependent on an annual vote of the registered voters who are approved to exercise the rights they were permitted.

        6. avatar Joe says:

          In that case, the Second Amendment would cease to be a Constitutional right, and would become a regulated, government “privilege” based on the whims of whatever state one lives in. Or so it would appear. “Registering” to be “allowed” to own a gun? One may as well-while one is at it-write down all the list of firearms one owns, as well.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In that case, the Second Amendment would cease to be a Constitutional right, and would become a regulated, government “privilege” based on the whims of whatever state one lives in. ”

          The root was a statement on the order of, “most people would accept that we need registration and regulation of guns”. My first response was that I would agree to such IF every citizen had to register and be approved to exercise any right guaranteed by the constitution, every single right, both at the federal and state level; specific application and background check for every right intended to be exercised. Then the question was whether the permission slips would be “shall issue”, or “may issue”. To which I responded that it would be “shall” at federal level” and whichever at state level. Essentially we are extending a conversation based upon an absurd statement.

        8. avatar Pg2 says:

          Sam, what does the imaginary social contract that no one has signed but everyone accepts say about this?

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, what does the imaginary social contract that no one has signed but everyone understands say about this?”

          The “social contract” is what keeps us from being at eternal civil war, blood feuds, honor killings, becoming like the Balkans. The agreement underlying the constitution (which is actually part of “the social compact) that we settle political disputes at the ballot box, not the battlefield. In court, not the way of the Vendetta. That we change laws, not escalate into an arms race. Once the “contract” is considered an impediment to having our way, the nation becomes completely under the rule of men, not law.

          A perfect example of what happens when the contract begins to breakdown is the current border crisis. One group contending is declaring that it is too difficult to solve the problem through legislation, so the only “caring” course of action is to demand that the executive branch ignore the law, and do what is expedient. Rather than agitators from the populace demanding a breakdown in the rule of law, we have lawmakers demanding the breakdown in the laws they established.

  18. avatar Anymouse says:

    Their argument has a lot of merit, but appealing directly to the SC is a hail Mary. They hear few cases, so usually they involve a split between circuits. Unless 4 SC Justices want to smack down the CT court and push PLCAA, they’ll be denied cert. They should try district and circuit courts first and work their way up to the SC.

  19. avatar Icabod says:

    Bald Trepe talks about the “myth” of a 20 minute response time and uses Sandy Hook to argue the NRA got it wrong. It is incorrect to say that the Sandy Hook shooting was typical.

    However:

    “According to the Department of Homeland Security, the average response time to an active shooter incident is 18 minutes, while the average active shooter event lasts less than 13 minutes. Panic button providers claim the apps cut response times in half, but there haven’t been any independent studies of the technology’s use in a school setting.”
    https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-school-shooting-panic-button.html

    Then there is the Las Vegas mass shooting.

    “it took SWAT approximately 75 minutes to mobilize and enter the hotel suite, which is far longer than
    the 20-minute response time by some SWAT teams (Los Angeles Times Staff, 2018; Blair & Martaindale, 2013).

    “the writer has seen how a lockdown works and the results of an active shooter call going out throughout a county. Nearly one hundred officers and deputies responded to the scene within about 20 minutes. ”
    https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/active-shooter-response-playbook/

    Research indicates that the shooter is done before the police arrive. In training I received it was emphasized that the shooter in incredibly distracted and won’t persist. As example the Virginia Tech shooter found students had locked a door. He rattled the knob, walked on, the retraced his steps trying the door a second time.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      The citations you list are interesting and I will research them more, but I do want to point out:

      “Nearly one hundred officers and deputies responded to the scene within about 20 minutes. ”

      I think what that is saying is that within 20 minutes there were 100 officers on scene. Clearly, there were individual LEOs there well before 20 minutes had elapsed.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        How long from when the first officer arrived in the parking lot until the first officer actually entered the school to attempt to stop the killing. Having a hundred officers on scene means nothing if they’re not aggressive and are just waiting to see what happens.

  20. avatar Joe says:

    I would not trust Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to be gun owners friends. And vote-whichever-way-the-wind-blows Roberts? I rest my case. If gun manufacturers can be sued for the actions of others, why not sue the hell out of car makers when a person kills someone with the vehicle he/she was driving? After all, society has deemed that one does not have to take any personal responsibility for his/her actions. Just blame someone else for the crime “you” committed. Particularly when it comes to killing someone with a “scary looking gun that civilians should not be ‘allowed’ to own”.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Particularly when it comes to killing someone with a “scary looking gun…”

      Never understood that “scary looking” thing. Black rifles look plain, uninteresting, boring, fakey. Wonder if a fully chromed, completely tricked-out AR would be considered “scary”?

  21. avatar Hans says:

    You can win any case on appeal in the
    Connectineck Uber Court. No real surprise.

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    The M1 Garand I own was purchased through a deal between the federal government and CMP. The M1, like pretty much every military firearm ever developed, was produced to create casualties on the battlefield. And as readers here probably know, it does so more effectively per round fired than the M16 and\or AR. So should the government be sued for putting it in civilian hands? Don’t answer that.

  23. avatar Someone says:

    “Congress enacted the (law) to ensure that firearms — so central to American society that the Founders safeguarded their ownership and use in the Bill of Rights — would be regulated only through the democratic process rather than the vagaries of litigation,”

    The Founders safeguarded the arms ownership and use in the Bill of Rights exactly so they cannot be easily regulated by a whim of 50%+1 (democratic process).

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