Why the Remington Case Cert Denial Matters More Than You Think

US Supreme Court Quill v North Dakota Wayfair Online Sales Tax

I have noticed a disturbing trend in the Supreme Court, considering that many people believe it to be a majority-conservative court with the appointments of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected an appeal for a temporary stay of enforcement of the bump-stock-type device ban. That means Trump’s we’re sure they’ll be pro-2A appointees went along with an unconstitutional, uncompensated taking.

They did agree to hear the NYSR&PA challege to New York City’s limits on transporting firearms, but specifically told both sides to argue why it is or is not already moot. A bad sign.

And now SCOTUS has denied certiorari in Remington Arms v. Soto, the case in which Sandy Hook parents and one survivor are suing Remington for “negligent marketing” under Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law, in direct violation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The PLCAA was passed to prevent unscrupulous attempts at bankrupting firearms companies — preemptive gun control, cutting off the lawful supply at the source — by blaming them for the criminal use of their products by other people; frivolous lawsuits.

It does not get much more frivolous than suing suing Remington for “negligently marketing” the rifle to a middle-aged woman who compounded the so-called crime by “negligently” getting murdered in her bed by the chumbucket who went on to kill 26 more children and adults.

And the Supreme Court — including those wonderful pro-2A Trump appointees — is allowing that case to proceed.

As bad as that sounds, it is actually worse than you might think, unless you follow court cases like some folks follow the NFL. I mentioned the Court’s inaction on bump stocks above, not simply because it illustrated the lack of faith on the Second Amendment, but because of another lawsuit.

The parents of a Mandalay Bay victim are also challenging the PLCAA, in Nevada court. Now that SCOTUS has discarded the law, we have a real problem.

Those parents are not alleging anything as silly as “negligent marketing.” They have noted that PLCAA protections do not apply if the firearm company has broken the law. They are claiming that, since the Trump administration determined that bump stocks are machineguns, then all semi-automatic rifles are “easily converted” to machineguns just by changing out the stock.

That makes them machineguns even without the actual bump stock, under ATF interpretation. Therefore, semi-automatic rifle companies are unlawfully manufacturing machineguns for civilians. And that loses them PLCAA immunity. Allegedly.

We now have a Supreme Court that has allowed that bump stocks are machineguns subject to the National Firearms Act. That Court has also effectively killed the PLCAA.

Combine the two and look at the Nevada challenge. We have a semi-auto problem.

comments

  1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant certiori. I’ve poked around the Interwebz, and haven’t seen anything detailing how many said yes, so it’s possible that three Justices wanted to review it, just shy of the necessary total.

    …I’m still waiting to see what happens with ‘ol RBG over the next year. Even if she takes a dirt nap and leaves a seat vacant, it’s not guaranteed that Trump will be able to successfully appoint her successor in 2020, it being a volatile election year. But one can hope for a replacement sooner rather than later.

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      SCOTUS rejects 99.995+% of cases submitted for review. It simply isn’t possible to accept all the good cases every time.

      Just because they rejected this one doesn’t mean the tide has turned. Stay calm.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Not worried. Just stating the facts, plus my thoughts on the upcoming 2020 year.

        However, according to SCOTUS’ own site, they grant plenary review to about 80 cases annually, out of 7000 to 8000 submitted. That’s a “rejection” rate of under 99%, or more than 200 times less than the extremely high 99.995+% you suggest.

        https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.aspx

        1. avatar Country Boy says:

          Sounds to me like the SCOTUS justices sit on their ass at home a bit too much………

        2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          @Country Boy,

          Well, considering the Court is hearing arguments and writing opinions only nine months out of the year (Oct thru June), or 39 weeks, that’s an average of two major cases each week that affect the nation. I wouldn’t call that “sitting on their asses”.

        3. avatar Thixotropic says:

          Time to take a math class.

          Since when is 99% 200X LESS than 99.995%?

          Supremes are NOT doing their job regardless of Plenary Review stats.

          “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

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Thixo,

          ** 80 cases out of 7500 average per year = 0.0107, or 1.07% acceptance rate.

          ** John Boch claimed that SCOTUS rejects 99.995+%, which would be a 0.005% acceptance rate.

          ** 1.07% is 214 times as much as 0.005%. My claim of 200x is therefore correct.

          I don’t know what math you were taught, but if it was public school, then I forgive your error and admonish you to get a better education.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Thixo,

          To clarify, my earlier statement that the true rejection rate is about 200x less than Boch’s claim. That’s what the match arrived at.

      2. avatar Paul Hurst says:

        The tide has turned. Remington now has to spend millions to defend themselves. That is the antigun goal. To force so much litigation cost they go bankrupt.

      3. avatar DDay says:

        As you said. SCOTUS accepts about 80 cases a year out of literally thousands of cases. They do not have the ability to take all cases and there are reasons why they don’t want to take a certain case at a certain time.

        Because SCOTUS only hears 80 cases a year, that is why the circuit court of appeals level is so important.

    2. avatar Don from CT says:

      Whether or not its anelection year is irrelevant. SCOTUS judges are confirmed by the Senate. The Senate will remain Republican through the end of 2020.

      So if the Notorious RBG dies before then, count on another Trump judge.

      By the way. I looked up the actuarial tables that the social security administration uses. And based on those, with a minor adjustment for the fact that she recieves better care than the average American. The chance is about 20% that she will die before Trump’s first term is up.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        I’m borrowing Notorious RGB!

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

          Rad, Leftist scum have been selling “Notorious RBG” t-shirts available for quite awhile now…

          https://www.bustle.com/articles/76801-where-can-you-buy-a-notorious-rbg-t-shirt-you-need-to-own-these-17-options-right

          The Mao-looking red design seems appropriate for Leftists…

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

          …and ‘Hoodies’, for those in the ‘hood…

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

          Whoa, if she’s to ill to vote on a case, that give a bit more ‘breathing room’ for the conservative wing of the Court…

          *evil giggle* 😉

      2. avatar Hankus says:

        Stop trying to cheer me up. It’s still been a crappy day.

      3. avatar PsychoUSMC says:

        I think you might have that’s little backwards. People diagnose with pancreatic cancer have a 25% chance of living for 1 year after diagnosis. 14% for 5 years if caught at stage 1.

  2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

    Off topic question.

    I apparently cannot comment on either of the two most recent “Sponsored Content” advertisements. Is this the new standard on TTAG?

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Been that way for a while. I don’t see any opportunity to comment on those sponsored articles, either.

      1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        Thanks for the heads up. Had not noticed until yesterday. I guess some advertisers feelings were hurt and Dan shut down the Comments…no dissenting (or supportive) comments on paid advertisements.

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

          I believe some of the ‘sponsors’ weren’t very happy with some of the comments they were getting.

          (Analogies of the relationship of heat to kitchens comes to mind… 😉 )

    2. avatar John Boch says:

      Some of the sponsored posts are set for “no comments.”

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

        🙂

  3. avatar Hammermier says:

    Someone explain this to me. They say its negligent marketing but the gun was never marketed to Adam Lanza. He murdered his mom to get the rifle. So how can this case proceed?

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      The case has to proceed, so that there can be a finding of fact on those very matters by the appropriate, lower court. SCOTUS does not deal in findings of fact.

      There is no guarantee that whatever CT court hears the case will make a finding of facts one way or the other. The claimants have a rather uphill battle to prove their case. But until the judge/jury/whomever renders a decision, there’s literally nothing for SCOTUS to do.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Perhaps the wise people in Black robes are looking for a decision in the suit to emerge, which we know will be arrived at with graphic photos and testimony.

        This suit is the case they can’t bring against Mrs. Lanza and her protoplaza offspring. The father was out of the picture so he’s off the hook. Not much in assets worth taking.

        So the only pile of money is Remington and if they can crack the PLCCA open it will be bigger than asbestos.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So the only pile of money is Remington and if they can crack the PLCCA open…”

          Suing under an exception in PLACA is not “cracking” PLACCA open.

        2. avatar Biff says:

          If they are successful in going after gun manufacturers, I would think alcohol & sports cars would be next. I’m not exactly a legal scholar, have people successfully argued this to sue other manufacturers?

    2. avatar Fox Mulder says:

      The shooting was staged, it was a sham, such as it is this lawsuit.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Never put to conspiracy that could be blamed on ignorance, ineptitude, laziness, or neglect.

        Multiply by 2+ orders of magnitude when government agencies are involved.

  4. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

    “They are claiming that, since the Trump administration determined that bump stocks are machineguns, then all semi-automatic rifles are “easily converted” to machineguns just by changing out the stock.

    That makes them machineguns even without the actual bump stock, under ATF interpretation.”

    Well, that’s easily fixed. The ATF only needs to reverse its own reversal, and honor its original declaration that bump stocks are not machine guns.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Any semi auto could be converted to a machine gun by attaching a motor to a trigger crank. The readily convertible is a regulation (agency interpretation) and not part.of the law. It could be challenged if they tried to enforce such a change.

  5. avatar 76shovel says:

    I am sorry we should have warned the public about the slippery slope in the bump stock debacle, WHAT! Oh we did, never mind.

  6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    IANAL, but from my reading, this is a bit of premature hyperventilating.

    The claimants allege that PLCAA protections do not apply, because respondent violated state law (namely, advertising law) in the marketing of the AR15. All other claims in the original lawsuit have been dismissed by CT courts.

    Since the actual lawsuit has not yet proceeded, no findings of fact have been made. Therefore, the matter is not yet ripe and SCOTUS can not determine if application of law based on findings of fact does or does not violate federal law (PLCAA), or constitutional protections (first amendment).

    In short, there is nothing yet for SCOTUS to decide.

    You are completely misrepresenting, and sensationalizing, SCOTUS actions, both with respect to bump stocks and with respect to PLCAA. SCOTUS has not “gone along” with an unconstitutional taking. SCOTUS has not “discarded” PLCAA. SCOTUS is merely waiting until those matters are ripe to be heard.

    Now, will SCOTUS grant cert to those cases once they are ripe? Who knows. Will SCOTUS uphold the constitution if they hear the cases? Who knows. Is it fair to be concerned with how SCOTUS will act? Absolutely.

    But making the claims that you make here is little more than hyperventilating.

    1. avatar Ronald Pottol says:

      100% This needs to be covered by someone familiar with how the court works, doesn’t need to be a lawyer, but they needed to be able to read and understand this stuff.

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

        “100% This needs to be covered by someone familiar with how the court works,..”

        That was done yesterday by commentor LKB, who knows how the high Court works, and will be at the court to observe the proceedings in person in 3 weeks when oral arguments commence for what we hope is a landmark ruling in the “NY Pistol” firearm transportation case…

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

          Here is the full quote by LKB :

          “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.”

  7. avatar MB says:

    It matters because based on SCOUS ruling, you now can sue Ford, Firestone, Exxon and DuPont because you got T-boned when you went thru an intersection by a stolen 1975 Red Ford Pinto, driven by a teenage psychopath off his meds… FUBAR.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      One, there has been no SCOTUS “ruling”. Two, SCOTUS denying cert to an unripe matter does not lead to the outcomes you describe.

      1. avatar MB says:

        @Chip Bennett “Ruling” or “Decision” not to hear case is same as accepting the lower court’s “Ruling” or “Decision” as valid, allowing a trial for judgement. So now, any action similar will be considered by lower courts as acceptable. Lack of action is tantamount to acceptance without approval. Will result in lots of unjustified and frivolous actions against manufactures, most likely many will be unsuccessful, but cost to defendants could be fatal to their businesses. I didn’t say your action against Ford, Firestone, etc would be successful resulting in judgement against defendant.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Chip Bennett “Ruling” or “Decision” not to hear case is same as accepting the lower court’s “Ruling” or “Decision” as valid, allowing a trial for judgement.

          The only lower court ruling allowed to stand by denying cert here is the CT supreme court’s determination that CT’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) applies to the advertising of firearms.

          So now, any action similar will be considered by lower courts as acceptable.

          Yes, as of this moment, if another claimant brings a lawsuit in CT against a firearm manufacturer based on an allegation of violating CUTPA through its advertising, that lawsuit will be allowed to proceed.

          Lack of action is tantamount to acceptance without approval. Will result in lots of unjustified and frivolous actions against manufactures, most likely many will be unsuccessful, but cost to defendants could be fatal to their businesses.

          SCOTUS cannot make a determination if a lawsuit is frivolous until a lower court has made a finding of fact in that regard. The lower CT court could determine, based on facts, that the allegation is frivolous. The lower CT court could allow the case to proceed, and find in Remington’s favor. The lower CT court could allow the case to proceed, and find against Remington.

          Until one of those outcomes happens, there is nothing for SCOTUS to do, or to decide.

          I didn’t say your action against Ford, Firestone, etc would be successful resulting in judgement against defendant.

          SCOTUS denying cert in this case has absolutely zero bearing on Ford, Firestone, etc., since a claimant could already bring a CUTPA-based lawsuit against them for allegations regarding their advertising.

        2. avatar MB says:

          @Chip, You must be a lawyer, because you have over analyzed everything I said. Just saying that this opens the door for every freaking nutcase with a money grubbing lawyer ( yes they are out there ) to start a bull$hit lawsuit that will cost the defendant 100’s of thousands to dollars to get it thrown out.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Chip, You must be a lawyer…

          Nope; still not a lawyer.

          …because you have over analyzed everything I said.

          If responding point-by-point is “over analyzing”, then I am guilty as charged.

          Just saying that this opens the door for every freaking nutcase with a money grubbing lawyer ( yes they are out there ) to start a bull$hit lawsuit that will cost the defendant 100’s of thousands to dollars to get it thrown out.

          Again, nothing has changed. That was true before this denial of cert, in the very limited scope covered by what is left of the Remington lawsuit.

        4. @MB says:

          @Chip, You must be a lawyer, because you have over analyzed everything I said.

          Well, it’s either that or you, MB, under-explained what you meant to say.

      2. avatar Brodirt says:

        It is ripe because the PLCAA was intended as a bar to a suit.
        The claim was filed and Remington moved to dismiss on PLCAA grounds. The denial of that motion is an appealable Order.
        The theory of the appeal is, again, that the PLCAA prevents the filing of a suit, not the adjudication of a suit.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It is ripe because the PLCAA was intended as a bar to a suit.”

          Not quite. The law has provisions for suing if sales and/or marketing break an existing sales and marketing law.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Sam I Am: exactly.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It is ripe because the PLCAA was intended as a bar to a suit.
          The claim was filed and Remington moved to dismiss on PLCAA grounds.

          PLCAA carves out narrow exemptions, one of which is violating law. The matter at hand is an allegation that Remington violated CUTPA through its advertising of the AR15. That matter is not yet ripe for SCOTUS.

          The denial of that motion is an appealable Order.

          The CT supreme court already acted on the motion to dismiss, and dismissed everything except this last remaining, narrow issue.

          The theory of the appeal is, again, that the PLCAA prevents the filing of a suit, not the adjudication of a suit.

          And the validity of the appeal hinges on the determination of whether or not PLCAA’s exemption is in play. That question cannot be answered by SCOTUS, because it is a matter of CT state statute, that must be determined (first) by CT courts.

        4. avatar Anymouse says:

          The flaw is in the PLCAA itself. It puts the defendants’ legal fees upon the losing plaintiffs, but, so far, they haven’t paid. They law could be changed to require upfront payment (refundable upon loss) or posting of a bond, or placing responsibility of the losing council’s firm and preventing them from practicing until it’s paid off.

    2. avatar James A Corbally says:

      MB, you really don’t understand this case.

      The only element of this case that now stands is the marketing and advertising angle being put forth. This is an angle that’s not been addressed before, and it needs to go through the lower courts before SCOTUS will ever touch it.

      In a sane world, it’ll be slapped down in the lower. If that fails, SCOTUS will very likely take it up at a future date once Remington appeals again, and they WILL slap it down.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        The point here is that if a bad decision is made by a lower court, the top court can slap it down and that decision can’t be used again. They don’t put the cart before the horse.
        Yes, it is disappointing, but that is how it works.

  8. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Bump this, bump that. The point here is that if your goal is to eliminate all firearms from civilian hands you’ll use any excuse or means to do so. And that is the goal. Fight’s a comin’ boys and girls. Best be ready for it.

    1. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

      GUNNY, all one has to do is watch the cluster f888 going on now in congress..THERE ARE NOLONGER ANY WORKING BRAINS IN CONGRESS.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        Actually there is one small one. But they have to share it. 🙂

  9. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Tyranny of court is now coming to full fruition.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I have noticed a disturbing trend in the Supreme Court, considering that many people believe it to be a majority-conservative court with the appointments of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

    The Supreme Court unanimously rejected an appeal for a temporary stay of enforcement of the bump-stock-type device ban. That means Trump’s we’re sure they’ll be pro-2A appointees went along with an unconstitutional, uncompensated taking.

    Hold on a cotton-pickin’ minute. While someone may be able to question whether Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are conservative, it seems about as concrete as anything that Justice Clarence Thomas is about as conservative as you can be. And even he rejected the appeal for a temporary stay of enforcement of the bump-stock device ban.

    When Gorsuch and Kavanaugh disagree with Thomas and Alito, we can question how conservative they are. Until then, we have no basis IN FACT to question how conservative Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Mr. Bussjeager clearly does not understand the difference between deciding on a stay of enforcement and deciding a case on its merits. If they feel that the wrong caused by the defendant can be adequately compensated at any time (such as reimbursing them for the cost of destroyed bump stocks), there’s appears to be compelling reason to grant a temporary stay of enforcement.

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    For reference, here is the CT Supreme Court decision.

    The only part of the lawsuit that remains is the claim that Remington marketed the AR15 in an unlawful manner that encouraged the commission of an unlawful act, in violation of CT advertising statutes.

    Negligent entrustment is dead. Everything else is dead.

    Please stop blowing this out of proportion.

    1. avatar Marcus says:

      Exactly even on the rare chance this Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) suit wins the fine is $25,000 applies only to CT and even then they just change the marketing and that’s that. The ATF determination that bump stocks are machineguns, then all semi-automatic rifles are “easily converted” to machineguns just by changing out the stock is totally bunk. Even the ATF know this is a total rewrite of clearly worded definition and will be thrown out by any non activist judge. Maybe we should thank Trump, and I do say maybe, that these laws will face trial and jurisprudence and be overturned now and forever and not just ignore it and hope it never does as a forever lingering threat.

  12. avatar James A Corbally says:

    This article seems to be more about taking shots at Trump than actually understanding why SCOTUS didn’t take up this case (this time).

    It doesn’t help our community.

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    There are some inherent problems with the article, as in misstatements, or misunderstandings about PLACA.

    “Sandy Hook parents and one survivor are suing Remington for “negligent marketing” under Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law, in direct violation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.”
    – – In what way does the narrow path allowed by Connecticut’s SC violate PLACA? We only have the assertion that it does, and a link to another article that does not actually support the above claim.

    “It does not get much more frivolous than suing suing Remington for “negligently marketing” the rifle…And the Supreme Court — including those wonderful pro-2A Trump appointees — is allowing that case to proceed.”
    – – “Where’s the Beef?” PLACA provides an exception to its protections in the clause that allows legal action to proceed against gun manufacturers (or any one else involved in the industry) who break a law “applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm or ammunition], and there by causing the plaintiffs injuries.” Such claim has been made, and SCOTUS cannot arbitrarily decide that such a claim is frivolous on its face simply because PLACA is cited.

    The upshot is that the application of the PLACA exception (or any other law regarding sales and advertising) isn’t “ripe” for SCOTUS review; no actual adjudication of the facts has issued. SCOTUS cannot review a decision of a lower court that has not yet happened (the actual application of the exceptions to PLACA in the instance at hand).

    Is the SCOTUS denial of cert important? Yes. Is it more important than we think? Not actually. It is only one artifact in the course of a liability claim that has not yet reached a conclusion. Is the denial of cert a tactical/strategic move on the part of SCOTUS? Maybe. The NY transport case is pending, and that ruling could possibly affect a number of 2A cases currently in the courts. Thus, SCOTUS, rather than taking on several contemporary cases individually, maybe reserving its prerogative to use the NY case to settle the hash in a collection of cases active in the lower courts.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      I never thought I’d say it, but I agree 100% with what Sam I Am says here.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I never thought I’d say it, but I agree 100% with what Sam I Am says here.”

        While I appreciate your words, think nothing of it. I sometimes stumble upon the truth…but immediately pick myself up and carry on as if nothing happened.

  14. avatar MLee says:

    Not worried. Let the lower courts deal with it and then if a bad verdict comes out, the court can hear an appeal.

  15. avatar LKB says:

    I demur. This post is nothing but ignorant scaremongering.

    As anyone with actual appellate law experience (which, I glean from his comments, the author of this post does not have) knows, it is extremely difficult to get the Supreme Court to take ANY case. It is a simple and established fact of life that the Supreme Court takes very, very few cases — even ones where there are stark and longstanding splits between the circuits. It’s maddening and frustrating, but it’s been that way for generations.

    Compounding this is the fact that except in very unusual situations they will not take cases that are not ripe — meaning cases like the Bushmaster case that are still in a preliminary procedural posture are just not going to be heard. Add to it that the CT Supreme Court couched its decision as one dealing with a state law issue (which the US Supreme Court won’t rule on anyway), and a cert denial was all but assured.

    The fact that the Supreme Court denied cert in Bushmaster (procedurally unripe; decision arguably turns on a state law issue) and the bump stock case (not decided on the merits — merely refusing to review a denial of a preliminary injunction) are not surprising, nor do they portend anything on how those cases might come out when they ARE procedurally ripe and on the merits.

    Because the pro-2A community is highly invested in gun-related lawsuits, it’s easy to get intellectually lazy and see anti-2A bogeyman and strategems behind everything that happens. As I have remarked before, such an attitude is not dissimilar to the college SJW types who stridently proclaim that everything is the result of racism / sexism / climate change / etc.

    Now, if Roberts wimps out in NYSR&PA, I’ll join in decrying the Supreme Court’s lack of fortitude. But the fact that the Court did not take up cases that anybody with a modicum of legal experience would tell you were longshot cert petitions at best signifies nothing.

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

      “Now, if Roberts wimps out in NYSR&PA, I’ll join in decrying the Supreme Court’s lack of fortitude.”

      I’m confident the NY law will be struck down, maybe even with prejudice. Even the Leftists agree on that, at this point.

      My fear is, it’s gonna be a narrow ruling, and Roberts won’t expand on it to deal with carry outside the home. My nightmare is that Roberts will heed the threat made by 3 Senate Democrats :

      “What is not acceptable is openly threatening the court with political retribution if it does not rule a certain way. That is precisely what these Senate Democrats did. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they wrote. “And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured to reduce the influence of politics.’ ””

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/03/senate-democrats-unprecedented-threat-against-supreme-court/

      Recall the optimism felt after the oral arguments in the 2012 “ObamaCare” ruling. How skeptical Roberts sounded in his questions on its constitutionality.

      And then Obama made a public comment to the conservatives on SCOTUS :

      ““And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said.

      “Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” he said.”

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-healthcare/obama-takes-a-shot-at-supreme-court-over-healthcare-idUSBRE8310WP20120402

      And look what we got for a ruling.

      Roberts folded like a flimsy card table on ObamaCare, I fear he is going to do the exact same thing on ‘Ny Pistol’, and refuse to give the 2A the “respect it deserves”, as justice Thomas once wrote in frustration…

  16. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    And no one has commented on the California ban on semi-auto rifles. Why have the courts blessed that anti-gun law? If that law stands this court case pales in comparison.

    The California Courts have also ruled self-protection by open and concealed carry only applies to the ruling Oligarchy and their protectors the Police, not the commoners who have been declared expendable.

    One could also mention the Massachusetts and other East Coasts bans and semi-auto restrictions, and the multitude of States that banned high capacity magazines, again all blessed by the courts. None overturned. None. Now try ad tell me what the courts will or will not do.

    History has already proven the courts are no friends of 2A as it would diminish their absolute power over the people. The Courts primary purpose has always been the protection of the ruling Oligarchy and the protection of their extreme wealth.

    And before anyone mentions the corrupt and disingenuous Scalia decision read all of it as it clearly leaves wiggle room for the courts to ban anything they deem a danger to themselves or the ruling Oligarchy.

    The 2020 elections may and probably will result in a watershed of change in gun ownership i.e. restrictions in the U.S. and no one should be under any illusions that the Courts will overturn any of it because it is now so popularly supported by the general populous, (as every survey taken proves it) and public opinion strongly influences court decisions especially when it enhances their own absolute power over the people.

    I have already buried my guns because I am under no fantasies or illusions about the courts saving us. If there is a Blue Wave landslide in 2020 our ass is grassed and anyone not on mind bending drugs does not have to be told this because the answers are always found in prior history and none of it ever saved gun owners or 2A. Is anyone dumb enough to believe it will be different this time?

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Sooooo, when do you plan on digging them up? Before, or after, you need them? Or are you just going to wait around for a few decades to see what happens?

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      If you’ve buried your firearms because you fear government action, then you fail to grasp the purpose of the second amendment.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Hi, Chip.

        Long time, no see.

      2. avatar MB says:

        If it gets to the point of “burying your guns”, maybe it’s time to use them?

      3. avatar Rubiconcrossed says:

        If you are insinuating armed resistance would take place among the populous those few who would dare such foolishness would disappear in a red puff of mist in minutes. The Average Joe needs his job and looks out for his family. People would hesitate at first to turn them in but a few individuals used as examples that fell victim to the government would then cause an avalanche of guns to be turned in. History has proven this many times over. Any counter argument to this is to engage in pure fantasy not cold hard reality and a complete ignorance of past history. Zealots of the world of flag waving fantasy like to reminisce about the “Minute Men” little realizing they had little to do with success of the American Revolution. Rather it was the outcome of foreign intervention and participation in that war. None of which would occur in present times.

        All this reminds one of the iconic picture of a mouse (gun owners) giving the finger to a giant killer Hawk (the government) swooping down on the mouse with claws extended. The picture was captioned “The Last Great Act Of Defiance”. The cartoon is humorous but what would happen to those who dared resist is not humorous. Today with cameras watching us hundreds of times a day and government electronic surveillance 24/7 any fantasy about resistance is laughable. We exist only at the pleasure of the Government and the Oligarchy that controls it. This is today’s reality in the computerized 21st Century. When the great patriot Edward Snowden exposed the complete and illegal surveillance of all American Citizens he barely escaped with his life. A harbinger of what is to come for anyone in the future that would dare to resist.

        Yes I think the OP (MoreAdventures) was probably foolish to bury his guns but I know that if in the future a draconian law is codified by the courts (which it will be) the ATF in the past has given amnesty periods for people who did not stiff arm salute immediately.

        As for me I would turn them in as I plan on living to retirement age. Lets hope somehow a miracle happens and this does not transpire but the future looks grim indeed after 2020. I am under no illusions after last weeks disastrous election results in Virginia where the Blue Wave annihilated all vestiges of Republican power in that State. Remember too that if the Blue Wave is successful packing of the Supreme Court will be a certainty. Again any reliance on the Courts is pure fantasy.

        When they confiscate all semi-auto’s and high cap magazines in the State of Virginia it will be proof enough of how fast the populous will obey the new law or laws. You will see no revolution and you will see no armed resistance. This is 2020 not 1776 and to a large degree even 1776 was very different than what most people fantasize about today.

        I will truly miss my Colt AR15 and the rest of my semi-autos. I image the bastards will even take my 1906 tube fed Winchester rim fire pump gun as well. I will miss that family heirloom the most. It will be the end of America as I once knew it. The real tragedy is that most of the younger generation does not own guns and does not understand why anyone would even want one. Too them gun bans are no big deal and no concern of theirs. Their world of today is very much different than the one I once lived in. I am a dinosaur to them, and an unfathomable relic of the past and they only wish for my generation to die and get the hell out of their way. Good luck young ones you will certainly need it in the future.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” The Average Joe needs his job and looks out for his family. ”

          This statement is the lynchpin of your entire, very lengthy post. If this statement is and remains true, you have a point. But, for this statement to remain true, the status quo has to preserve it.

          What if things change, and Average Joe no longer has a job, has little prospect of finding a job, and his family is very hungry and in daily danger of being evicted, debts are going unpaid and stuff is being repossessed? Your entire analysis crumbles.

          I agree that little will happen in the way of armed resistance as long as most of us stay fat and happy. There are, however, several storm clouds out along the horizon that could change things in a fairly short time. While I think that all the civil war talk is just a lot of bluster, civil disorder is a very close possibility. There are several fault lines in the economy, in the culture, in the politics, and in the ecosystem. If any one of them cracks, it could very likely cause fractures in all the others.

          This is the real threat, not an organized uprising of patriotic citizens. Just about every revolution ever fought started out as a bread riot. And if (when) a general disintegration does happen, all bets about what Average Joe is going to do are off the table.

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

      “And no one has commented on the California ban on semi-auto rifles.”

      Chill, homie.

      Several of those cases are winding their way through the courts currently.

      And if RBG becomes unable to maintain her seat on the Court, the replacement seated by Trump will likely inspire testicular fortitude by an even stronger Roberts court to finally deal with that issue (hopefully) for good, restoring respect for the 2A…

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    To be inscribed on the facade of the SCOTUS building: “BOHICA.”

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      Good ‘ole John Roberts should be the one to inscribe it.

  18. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Imagine what will happen if and when the suit fails or if successful it WILL go through the appeal process and end up in SCOTUS.

  19. avatar Bugei says:

    Once “I will not comply” becomes an individual’s default stance on gun registration, confiscation, or other infringement, I suspect that the Supreme Court has already become as irrelevant as local, state and Federal legislatures.

    Many just don’t care what the law says any more, and Demos and RINOs own that. Too bad, too, as a society cannot long endure when the average Joe no longer respects the law, the men who make it or those who enforce it. So big deal: we lost the Supremes, too.

    Let’s see: soap box? Tried it. Drowned out by leftist media. Ballot box? When everyone on the ballot is a CBAON (Communist By Any Other Name) or RINO, that has failed.
    Jury box? Legal system doesn’t tolerate jury nullification.

    What was that last one, again?

    Pass – and uphold – any laws you like: it just speeds the day when this is all resettled with rifles, as was begun at Concord.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      “Bellum omnium contra omnes.

      Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of every man against every man. In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ” Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes.

  20. avatar Randy Jones says:

    I should never read these before lunch and then have time to think about them.

    The SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal of a lower court’s ruling over the product liability claim against Remington for one of its firearms being used in the Sandy Hook Shooting. The theory is that though the firearm was not defective, and even thought the person took the gun illegally, the product was marketed to young people because an image of the firearm was used in a video game to shoot people. This may be considered “marketing” the firearm to young people for the purpose of killing others. This is basically being compared to ‘Camel Joe’, the talking camel in the Camel cigarette commercial, which some people said was aimed at getting children to start smoking. I would have thought parents might have some control over that, just as I would have thought parents would have some control over what video games their kids would be allowed to spend (reportedly) hundreds of hours playing.

    From what little details there are about the nuts and bolts of this suit there is posted on line, there seems to be no evidence that Remington ever consented to have their firearm named in a video game where people are shot. Remington does not seem to have been compensated for the likeness of their firearm being used in the video game. The video game’s manufacturer, creator or distributer has not yet been sued.

    This is also an issue, because so many keep saying that violent games do not cause the shooting to happen. Just as violent movies are not blamed nor are violent books. Stephen King removed his book Rage, based on school violence, from the market after two school shooters were found to own it, but he denied that his book caused it. Though he admitted it may have helped fuel an already troubled mind. Still he has not been sued over that. It would be impossible to prove that with a million copies sold, it caused two people to act out when 999,998 didn’t. Which, when you think about it, is like America’s most popular sporting arm, the AR-15 & clones, are used in less than 2% of homicides in the US, when there are several million in the public’s hands.

    A boat company has never been sued when a drunken fisherman drowns or crashes. Or would it be someone who isn’t consuming responsibly and the beer company should be sued? An auto manufacturer has never been sued over one of their commercials with cars ‘racing around town’. It would be hard to argue that a car sliding around corners with over 700 hp is not a commercial that could cause a young person to try to emulate that driving style. Or that of a video game showing the same thing. But no law suits have arisen yet. But each of these things would be considered misuse of a product, the fault of the individual using the product.

    Apparently, Remington has deeper pockets, this may cost several million dollars, with no way to recover the losses. Apparently, firearms are held to a higher standard that boats, beer, cars and individuals are.

    The real problems are: juries or judges that feel sorry for the parent’s loss and award them not by merit of the case but by the size of the defendants bank account, and the fact the defendant has no way to be compensated for their cost in defense if and when they do win. Remington could easily spend millions in defense and win, but their monetary loss will be passed on to customers, not to the plaintiff or their lawyers.

    The someone will sue the next manufacturer, etc.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I think that most people fail to realize that everything you argued in your comment has to be presented, argued, and ruled upon by a lower court before the matter is ripe for SCOTUS.

      It is a matter of CT law, and CT courts have to hash it out first. Until then, there is nothing for SCOTUS to do. SCOTUS doesn’t find fact in such matters; rather, SCOTUS rules whether the finding of fact was consistent with the constitution, federal law, and precedent case law.

      1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

        You need to understand why most of us are pissed off. The CT Supreme Court will rule against Remington. Even if Remington didn’t violate The CT Unfair Trade Practices Act, the CT Supreme Court is Majority,……Democrat. And most are Dannel Malloy Appointees.
        They will extra-judicially rewrite the law to hand the anti-gun scumbags a victory so they can bankrupt Remington.

        Remington will then appeal to the SCOTUS, but can we really trust that Democrat Suck-Ass panty-waste, John Roberts?!! Remember how that Scumbag rewrote Chairman Obama’s Healthcare Law?…Not once, but twice?……

        The anti-gun scumbags want this lawsuit to go to SCOTUS so they can trot out David Pol Pot Hogg, Emma Fidel Castro Gonzalez, and their other Politburo Stooges to make this Lawsuit a Daily Nation-Wide News Real.

        This will help the Democrat Party threaten the SCOTUS in the same manner that was done with Obamacare; and John Roberts folded like a spineless puss-bag fuck-up, so they’re hoping to do the same here.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I totally get the worry that SCOTUS will either fail to take the case, or else will take it and still decide improperly, once the case is ripe. That is a valid concern.

          But what doesn’t make sense to me is thinking, with a court that is either so averse to judicial activism that they would deny cert when the case is ripe or else so left-leaning that they would rule improperly if they do take the case when ripe, that there would ever be a chance that such a court would exhibit such judicial activism and right-leaning that they would take this case before it is ripe and unilaterally discern CT state statute in defense of the second amendment.

  21. avatar Alan says:

    So Remington is liable because someone used a stolen gun in a crime. With this precedent a friend of mine who was recently a hit and run victim with a stolen car can now sue the car manufacturer to recoup his medical expenses and disability.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “With this precedent a friend of mine who was recently a hit and run victim with a stolen car can now sue the car manufacturer to recoup his medical expenses and disability.”

      Only if the auto manufacturer violated existing laws regarding sales and marketing. The leg of the suit that claimed Remington was liable for illegal acts of a third-party was dismissed by the state SC.

      1. avatar Alan says:

        Have you ever seen an auto ad that did not emphasize power and speed. They are marketed on how fast they go encouraging violation of speed limits and safe driving. Always, of course, with the closed course disclaimer.

  22. avatar Chuck says:

    The devil is in the details. So now the manufacturer’s Marketing Strategy is to blame for a third party, who obtained a weapon unlawfully and used it to commit an atrocity is to blame, even though the third party wasn’t the lawful purchaser or owner of the product. This makes no sense.
    So if I’m killed in a car jacking, and the perp then uses my stolen car to kill 20 more pedestrians, it’s Ford’s fault because of their Marketing Strategy. That’s exactly what this looks like.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Headed to the LGS to buy some 556…😏

    1. avatar Frank says:

      BLOAT up!
      buy lots of ammo today, also firearms and all the other associated bits and bobs

  24. avatar Frank says:

    SLAPP lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
    Basically they are just following the rules for radicals gameplan by the commie alinsky

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      Yup. PLCAA missed this, big time.

  25. avatar WARFAB says:

    Maybe I’m just overly optimistic, but the Nevada case seems to be just the kind of overreaching argument that will demonstrate how absurd the bump stock ban actually is. If any semi-auto rifle can be easily converted to a “machine gun”, and weapons in common use are protected by the 2nd amendment (Heller), then why do real full auto firearms require special permission from the government? If the argument is that they’re all essentially the same, NFA distinctions suddenly become moot.

    Hey, a guy can dream can’t he?

  26. avatar MojoMedicineMan says:

    To add a quick note indirectly related to subject;
    “HOLLYWOOD” is on the march now, so this is pure brain washing of the public.
    Flipping through the channels the other night and I catch a new “Wesley Snipes” movie that I never seen before. I used to like Wesley until he recently “sold out” after making plenty of money in Hollywood using guns “as a good guy”. Before I know what is going on in the movie, I finally figure this movie out called “Liberty Stands Still”. Pro left wing attack of the 2nd Amendment. Its completely full of lies, brain washing and manipulation. In the movie, a gun manufactures wife is set up to be corrupt with a phony marriage, a side boyfriend and her name is Liberty, corrupt pro-gun politicians, the works. Wesley plays a former government agent, sniper/etc that his young daughter is accidentally killed by a young boys accidental actions with a pistol that the boy found, etc, so Wesley’s character goes on a rampage of murder of the innocent and law enforcement personnel, maiming knee shots/lol and a premeditated murder plan of the gun manufacture head ceo. Wesley’s character successfully murders him in public in an attempt to draw attention to a discussion about the 2nd amendment in our current age. After he murders him, the law is closing in on his location and he commits suicide with a revolver, as being portrayed as a hero. LMAO!
    I’m so disappointed with Wesley selling out.
    I guess that he still owes the IRS some money? This movie is on the “BOUNCE” tv network and its timing of current events and brain washing of those who are ignorant is downright sinful. Its one of the most hypocritic attacks on the 2nd amendment that I ever witnessed in a movie. They use almost every angle you can think of.
    BEWARE
    NOTE: Haven’t posted much, been busy with family stuff, will try and stay onboard.
    God Bless

  27. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: “They are claiming that, since the Trump administration determined that bump stocks are machineguns, then all semi-automatic rifles are “easily converted” to machineguns just by changing out the stock.” Except there was no such determination BEFORE the Vegas slaughter. Under the prohibition of ex post facto laws, the manufacturers could not be sued on that basis. Also I would think that a defense lawyer would argue that it is not the manufacturers to be sued but ATF. ATF should have followed up and issued the appropriate tax stamp or denied the sale.

  28. avatar Richard D Cutie says:

    Family member killed. Cash in on lawsuit!$!$!$ the new American way!! Trial lawyers are hunting these families down like vultures telling them they can make them rich and get “Justice” for thier loveones?? There is no justice for this kind of thing. Do the people in Oklahoma get to sue the Fertilizer company or fuel oil refinery that McVeigh used when he set off that bomb?? How about the truck the guy drove over those people in France a few years back? Can they sue Mercedes?? Bullshit needs to stop

  29. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    Its a great decision. Bring it into the public square, fight it out in court and be done with it once and for all. Instead of fighting one battle at a time, let’s use this one case to clear the docket.

    Just one thing, all you 2A’ers and phony dime book toting constitutionalists out there better pony up. Or shut up!!!

    And please don’t recommend wanna be Adam Kraut.

  30. avatar Sam Hill says:

    Money is the key. There isn’t any thing that can not be bought, including the 2cnd amendment..

  31. avatar Kap says:

    The supreme Court just sold the 2nd amendment down the river! Democrats control them also.

  32. avatar stop and count to 10 says:

    Stop running around with your hair on fire(even though i know you wont because some in our community cherish pushing the panic narrative constantly).

    Besides 18-280, which is the first court case on 2a the court has agreed to hear since heller and mcdonald(good sign). There are multiple cases being held by the SC…18-824 and 19-404, waiting to see what happens with 18-280. If that doesn’t work one of those will most likely be brought in its stead(good sign).

    Plus RBG was out sick and missed arguments again yesterday so we may just get ANOTHER justice(good sign).

    The pro 2a position, with all the judges that have been placed on the national stage along with the 2 SC appointees, has positioned us better to win in the court of law in more than four decades. (good sign)

    So stop, dunk your burning hair in some water and take deep breaths.

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