Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Supreme Court Will Not Halt Sandy Hook Families Lawsuit Against Remington

Supreme Court Will Not Halt Sandy Hook Families Lawsuit Against Remington

Denies Petition by gun manufacturer to hear the appeal.

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

The Supreme Court decided on Monday morning not to consider the request by gun manufacturer Remington Arms to stop the case against them by the Sandy Hook families.

In March, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the families can sue Remington “under state law over its marketing practices, citing one of the few exemptions to the federal law.”

A 2005 federal law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), states gun manufacturers can receive “legal immunity when their products are used in a crime.” It has many exemptions, “including when the actions of the firearms manufacturer ‘knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product.'”

The families insist that Remington violated state law “by marketing the AR-15-style rifle ‘for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.'”

Remington appealed the state’s decision to the Supreme Court. In its Writ of Certiorari, Remington claimed:

The decision will have immediate and severe consequences, exposing the firearms industry to costly and burdensome litigation based on theories of liability virtually indistinguishable from those that motivated the PLCAA’s enactment. States across the nation have broad consumer protection statutes comparable to CUTPA. Thus, as a leading scholar on firearm-manufacturer liability has explained, the decision below will “unleash a flood of lawsuits across the country.”

Allowing this case simply to proceed will inflict on the firearms industry the very harm the PLCAA was meant to address—massive, unsustainable litigation expenses, which threaten to destroy an industry that makes lawful products whose possession and use the Constitution specifically protects. Only this Court’s immediate review can avoid that consequence.

Since the high court declined to take up the case, the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision remains.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

can’t say i disagree with this ruling, from my limited info.

if the case fits an exception carved out in the federal law, then that’s that.

and, if they advertised poorly, which remains to be seen, that’s on them.

    Lewfarge in reply to redc1c4. | November 12, 2019 at 3:40 pm

    Stupid thinking !!!
    sue all beverage makers
    sue all car makers
    sue all car parts makers……………….

    THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISUSE OF ANYTHING IS THE FAULT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DOING THE MISUSE !!!!!

      ….. and sue all makers of sharp instruments, long overdue, given that box cutters were used on 9-11 and knives have become a weapon of choice in London.

    PaulB in reply to redc1c4. | November 12, 2019 at 3:47 pm

    Lanza could not legally posses a firearm…Sue the government….

    Milhouse in reply to redc1c4. | November 12, 2019 at 3:51 pm

    Except that it doesn’t fit the exception in any way. The claim that it does is an obvious lie, and the four CT judges who voted to wink their eye at it are liars. Just allowing the suit to proceed does permanent damage; even if Remington is not forced to settle, it immediately exposes smaller manufacturers to precisely the danger that Congress protected them from. The denial of cert is disappointing, because it indicates that at least two justices who could be assumed to agree with Heller have either changed their mind or worry that the other one has done so.

    alaskabob in reply to redc1c4. | November 12, 2019 at 4:00 pm

    Seen the latest car commercials for the new Toyota Supra? They didn’t advertise the rifle as an assassin’s dream. So now after the AR has been on sale since 1963-4 this is an issue?

    Oh, and the magazine feed semi-auto in intermediate caliber has been on sale for 110+ years it is now suddenly dangerous?

    MrSatyre in reply to redc1c4. | November 12, 2019 at 4:04 pm

    You definitely need more education on the subject.

    This could very well spell the end of civilian gun manufacturing and ownership, and have serious spill-over effects into countless other non firearms industries in this country.

      redc1c4 in reply to MrSatyre. | November 12, 2019 at 4:07 pm

      i can buy every tool i need to manufacture my own weapons at China Freight.

      at least as long as i’m willing to be a felon, that is….

      i’m too old for histrionics.

        Edward in reply to redc1c4. | November 13, 2019 at 11:40 am

        Histrionics? You obviously do not have knowledge as to the level of profit of companies in the firearms industry. In 2015-6 Newsmax claimed over a billion in profits for the entire industry without breakdown between government sales and civilian non-export sales. Newsmax reported for Smith and Wesson 2015 “…first-quarter profits rose significantly to $17.7 million, partially boosted by an increase in accessory sales.” And yet American Outdoor Brands, owner of S&W and 17 other companies, reported profits in calendar year 2017 of $3.2 million USD, down from 2016 profits of $32 million. Either 2015 was a super good year with a first quarter for just one brand exceeding half the total of the following year, or the Newsmax data was erroneous.

        Remington filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year emerging reorganized and shedding over 700 million in debt. Annual revenues (not profits) are between $100 and $500 Million USD (I wasn’t about to pay $85.00 to get exact figures from the reporting outfit). Needless to say after costs are deducted the profit figure will be significantly less than even the low end $100 million.

        Ruger (Sturm Ruger, the largest US firearms manufacturer) reported revenues of $121.12 Million in the last quarter of 2018 and $114 million for the first quarter of 2019.

        In 2015 Sturm Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Remington were the three largest companies in the US firearms business (in that order) by number of firearms produced, far larger than any others – if not all others combined. their gross revenues are less than stupendous, as seen above.

        Multiple lawsuits costing millions to defend will eliminate smaller companies and threaten even these largest. And that was the announced intent years ago, encouraging cities to use their deep pockets to fund legal actions to bleed the industry into Chapter Seven bankruptcy. This action by anti-gun organizations and lawyers resulted in passage of the law protecting lawful firearms manufacture. The histrionics are all on the side of the plaintiffs lawyers bringing the suit.

    euragone in reply to redc1c4. | November 12, 2019 at 4:47 pm

    Then you’d be an Idiot! It opens a can of worms..Can’t wait till GM gets sued for a DUI Death or car crashes!

    Sanddog in reply to redc1c4. | November 12, 2019 at 5:30 pm

    The Plaintiff’s attorneys will state that merely showing a picture of a black, scary, rifle is an indication that they want people to buy that rifle to shoot their “enemies”. Get a stupid jury and it may well fly.

      rocky71 in reply to Sanddog. | November 12, 2019 at 5:38 pm

      Clueless, easily-led, hypersensitive juries are easy to come by in Commie-necticut. Takes very artful representation to get one that’s truly balanced and reasonable.

    So, where’s the ad?

    For some reason I can’t even find a description of it.

    rscalzo in reply to redc1c4. | November 13, 2019 at 8:41 am

    This has been tried before and failed. It’s done simply to cause undue explense for the defendant.

    Will Cheysler be held accountable for Hellcat ads?

    rscalzo in reply to redc1c4. | November 13, 2019 at 8:41 am

    This has been tried before and failed. It’s done simply to cause undue explense for the defendant.

    Will Cheysler be held accountable for Hellcat ads?

Unbelievable. May Remington lose all their money in a tragic boating accident.

seems the lawsuits really hinge on why Lanza chose the guns he did. Seems he chose them because they were in his house. Not sure how the plaintiffs will prove the mindset of some lunatic who isn’t around to testify.

    Which makes the lawsuit all the more ridiculous. Lanza did not purchase these weapons. He stole weapons of opportunity. What if his mother had Henry repeating rifles instead?

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Real American. | November 12, 2019 at 3:42 pm

    Which would seem to strongly suggest that there is a critical lack of causation here, which would normally be fatal to the plaintiffs’ case. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., (248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99) anyone? (Ok, Palsgraf involves foreseeability, and not really causation, but I think that it is still relevant. For those who haven’t suffered through law school, this was typically one of the first cases taught in Torts. I am sure that there are causation cases almost as infamous).

      In fact the State Court Trial Judge dismissed the case, in part (IIRC) based on the fact that the perpetrator did not choose, or buy, the rifle. the State Supreme Court reinstated it on appeal.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Real American. | November 14, 2019 at 12:07 am

    That’s an interesting thought. The reason for Lanza’s choice of weapons seems to have been “availability.” So even if Remington had advertised its firearms as claimed, it would have been irrelevant to the incident. Certainly there’s no way to demonstrate that any of Remington’s advertising (of whatever nature) influenced Lanza’s choice of weapons. Remington is being sued for its advertising, which does not have a demonstrable nexus to the crime.

    Can a respondent ask a judge for a directed verdict in a civil case? If a respondent asks a judge for a directed verdict and it is not granted, can that be appealed as an error by the trial court?

The case can go forward. That doesn’t mean Remington won’t win, and quickly and easily. That is the problem with the politicized court, sometimes these subtle technical issues get conflated with “for or against guns”.

    lc in reply to tz. | November 12, 2019 at 3:49 pm

    But we must remember the judicial activists on the court.
    I wouldn’t put it past the leftists on the court + John Roberts to use this for such a purpose.
    We must hope Trump gets to replace a leftist on the court with an originalist- ASAP.

    Milhouse in reply to tz. | November 12, 2019 at 3:54 pm

    It doesn’t matter that Remington will win, eventually. It’s bound to lose at the trial court level, and have to appeal, and that gets expensive. The whole purpose of the federal statute was to protect manufacturers from having to defend themselves from precisely this kind of malicious frivolous suit.

      redc1c4 in reply to Milhouse. | November 12, 2019 at 4:05 pm

      then the authors of the bill should not have allowed ANY exceptions at the state level.

        Milhouse in reply to redc1c4. | November 13, 2019 at 12:06 am

        No. If the manufacturer actually violated the law then obviously it should be sued. Ditto if it made defective guns. Opponents of this statute pretend that it protects gun manufacturers from product liability suits, but it doesn’t; if a gun is badly made and injures someone it would be wrong to shield the manufacturer from responsibility.

        The statute shields manufacturers only from suits for the damage criminals do, using guns that are in perfect working order and were made and manufactured legally. This is just such a suit, and it’s the court’s duty to dismiss it on sight. They are evading this duty only by lying about what they are doing. There’s no remedy to such a thing.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | November 14, 2019 at 12:17 am

          A manufacturer who makes a defective anything that results in death or injury is always susceptible to a lawsuit. People expect products that are not inherently dangerous to be safe when used as intended. (And should have sense enough to not use a nominally safe product in an unsafe manner – such as using a laundry line for rappelling.) The federal law protects gun manufacturers from liability for the actions of third parties who abuse their products. Obviously, some products, like guns and knives, would have no utility if they were not inherently dangerous, so producers of such items can’t have a liability for their inherent danger. People buy guns because they hurl projectiles at high velocities and they buy knives because they’re sharp. Without the former ability a “gun” is not a gun and without the latter quality a “knife” is just a flat piece of metal.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 14, 2019 at 11:57 pm

          A manufacturer who makes a defective anything that results in death or injury is always susceptible to a lawsuit.

          Indeed, but the gun-grabbers routinely allege that this statute makes gun manufacturers the one exception to that rule, and prohibits such suits. They’re lying, but it needs to be repeated lest people believe it.

          Also, my comment was a direct response to redc1c4 who seemed to say that gun manufacturers should be exempt from such suits. You and I agree that they shouldn’t. People depend for their lives on their guns being well made and working properly, and a manufacturer who makes defective guns should be made to pay.

    rocky71 in reply to tz. | November 12, 2019 at 4:19 pm

    The biggest issue is that the case is pending in Connecticut STATE court and, should the case go to trial, will have to run the full gamut of State courts before going Federal unless there’s an additional US Constitutional/Federal law element along the way. That means, without said element, the case could go thru the whole system right up to the SAME activist judges of State court that ruled the claims fell under the exemptions in the first place!

I can’t say everything is true or not about the lawsuit. But I’m heartbroken as Remington provided the US military with the M24 Sniper Weapon System.

Normally I don’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System

t line to ….

I’m sorry.

Every car manufacturer is in trouble if a drunk ever drove one of their produces and killed someone.

This is disgusting.

They KNOW that the law doesn’t support this.

HE DIDN’T EVEN BUY THE ****ING GUN. HE STOLE IT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO PURCHASE IT.

They’re allowing it because the process is the punishment. This will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend successfully.

The M24 is not just a weapon system because it consisted of rifle and detachable scope.

No, she had to have a crew to serve her. Who could account for weather conditions and the curvature of the earth.

I bet you have no idea what I am talking about.

I was thinking of the USS Long Beach. Who thinks of the Long Beach? And the 5 inch 38 caliber.

You know a missile is an expensive way to put a shot across somebody’s bow.

I’ve owned three airplanes, the most expensive of which cost $1800, in the late 60s. That was before strict product liability, which raised the costs to manufacturers so much that most went out of business. Back then it was a side effect, now it’s the plan.

    DaveGinOly in reply to rhhardin. | November 14, 2019 at 12:22 am

    The plan could be disastrous to national security. Many firearms manufacturers rely on civilian sales to keep them afloat between government military and police contracts. Take away the civilian sales and many manufacturers will go under, reducing competition, artificially inflating prices, and stifling innovation. All bad news when we need a robust response from a manufacturing base with firearms know-how during a national defense emergency.

We want the court to rule on the law as it is; we don’t want the court to do the ‘right’ thing.

What we desperately need, though, is loser pays all court costs.

“The families insist that Remington violated state law “by marketing the AR-15-style rifle ‘for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.’”

Stupid but it appears to be a triable issue, if you’re a liberal or a swamp rat.

We voters need to step in, and vote in congressmen and woman who will step in and make this case moot by passing appropriate law.

Does anyone know how John Roberts voted on this?

    Why is that triable when there’s no nexus to the crime committed/harm suffered? It is impossible for the plaintiffs to demonstrate that Remington’s advertising led to Lanza’s actions, no matter how egregious their advertising may have been. He didn’t “select” the weapons, he stole what was available to steal. If he had broken into a firearms dealership, and selected Remington firearms exclusively, that might be a different story, but that’s not what happened.

    Plaintiffs would have suffered identical harm if Lanza had used similar weapons from any other manufacturer. There is nothing special about Remington’s firearms or their advertising that resulted in their use in this crime.

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | November 15, 2019 at 12:01 am

      Also, such advertising isn’t (and probably can’t be a crime).

      Also, there’s no foundation for the claim that they did use such advertising; it’s a transparent lie to get past the shield law, and it’s the courts’ duty to see that and not allow it.

      Allowing it because it’s theoretically possible that such an allegation could be true, in some other universe, has the effect of completely nullifying the statute; Congress could not have intended such an outcome, so the courts shouldn’t allow it.

Appreciate all the savvy comments on this one. Aside from the fact that this is going to cost Remington, as well as other, smaller manufacturers millions, my biggest concern is the jury.

Juries of late seem to be virulently anti-capitalist (witness absurd verdicts in the Roundup fiasco) and completely irrational to boot.

IOW, Remington could legally and logically win the argument and still lose the ranch to a (crazed left-wing)jury.

I seriously doubt a gun manufacturer could win in open court. I even think Remington could eventually go under.

Remington will ultimately prevail. Unfortunately, Remington will be forced to pay significant legal defense costs to do so. Legislation that attempted to preclude this type of suit should have been written tighter.

Bottom line is this suit should be dismissed based upon the ‘intervening act’ of the shooter. He committed the murders after stealing the forearms. Not to mention his family unsuccessfully reaching out to get mental health to put the kid inpatient.

Families of victims want someone to blame and are being willingly exploited, IMO, by anti-gun activists. Maybe this case can highlight the failure, sometimes willfully so of our mental health system to diagnose and treat the violent metal ill. If it wasn’t an AR 15 it would have been a propane bomb or something else, the kid needed to be forced into in patient care and was not. That is the true lesson.

This case is fatally flawed for simple reason.

The first is that how the weapon used was advertised is irrelevant. The weapon was used because the shooter was able to procure it easily by stealing it from his mother, who was obviously not a young male. And, as the shooter is dead and there exists evidence that he also took a handgun and, possibly, a shotgun in the same theft it becomes impossible to clearly show that he chose the weapon for any reason other than its immediate availability. So, how it was advertised is moot.

This case should never have been allowed to proceed to begin with.

Many of these shootings occur in mandated gun free zones which prevent lawful citizens who wish to do so, the ability to defend themselves.

Should those who mandated be held liable if it can be proven that a shooter chose to shoot there because of their mandate?

I say we bundle Connecticut with California and a few other states and give them away.

I come across people like Elman and Jacobson. And I look at how much they’ve contributed to the sum total of human knowledge.

Then here’s the deal. I spent all this time learning how to use aircraft carriers, F-14s, rifles, shotguns, bayonets, fists. And I never had to use them. Because, when I set sail I’m the 1,000 pound gorilla. Nobody lifts a finger. Everybody stays in port.

I keep thinking about all those gentlemen who lined the passageways of the Naval regional medical center, horribly burned and mutilated so I didn’t have to go through the same thing.

Thank you.

There I go again. Because I played Rugby I get to have an episode? One time I gave blood, now all of a sudden I deserve credit or something?

The sainted senior chief, my dad wouldn’t have it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=415HQ1t2ZNI&feature=emb_logo

I won’t have it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

I was thinking the An YANG.
WHICH I BET YOU FORGOT ABOUT. tHE AN yang BEING A DECENT SHIP. bACK IN THE EIGHTIES THE rEPUBLIC OF kOREA nAVY
tOOK HER OUT OF SERVICE.

AHD

It was kind of cute.

The Koreans were saying the aboard the An Yang were saying, “I’m sorry I don’t have the special food for foreigners.”

And I’m trying to pick my most favorite Kim Chee. Because I like all of it.

Why not then sue Hollywood for glorifying (marketing) gun violence? Morons.

More lunacy from SCOTUS. Watch out car makers and other manufacturers.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/bartender-arrested-for-serving-2017-plano-mass-shooter

What’s wrong with Texas? I moved here for a reason. And the reason was it’s not Kali.

Hey, full disclosure. I’ve been overserved. Snot slinging drunk. Did I mention I was a Sailor?

I have managed to not kill anyone.

just can’t get my mind around the idea that remington could be liable for any of their products when used in the commission of a felony–come on

the manufacturer has no control over the ultimate use of a product by the purchaser–hell, plastic bags can be lethal

All the weapons manufacturers need to join/donate to the defense of Remington, as well as all the gun groups like the NRA.

Remington should not have to bear the expense alone.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend