Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting

Tedminator

Former Staff
Jun 2010
26,782
18,894
South Florida
#1
Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.
..more..

This'll be interesting to watch. The NRA and Remington will have to spend bigly to fight this in court.
 
Nov 2014
30,462
5,606
North Carolina
#2
Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.
..more..

This'll be interesting to watch. The NRA and Remington will have to spend bigly to fight this in court.
No industry should be shielded from lawsuits. So I was initially sympathetic to this decision, though I'll own the reasoning for the shield is a good one. But after further investigation as to the actual reasoning behind this decision I've come to the conclusion this was yet another utterly stupid ruling by our inept courts.

How is it illegal advertising to advertise a legal product? That has got to be one of the dumbest decisions ever and worthy of our stupid judges. Hopefully this ridiculous suit fails.
 
Likes: spyydrr

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
12,625
14,081
Work
#3
No industry should be shielded from lawsuits. So I was initially sympathetic to this decision, though I'll own the reasoning for the shield is a good one. But after further investigation as to the actual reasoning behind this decision I've come to the conclusion this was yet another utterly stupid ruling by our inept courts.

How is it illegal advertising to advertise a legal product? That has got to be one of the dumbest decisions ever and worthy of our stupid judges. Hopefully this ridiculous suit fails.
Cigarettes are legal, and yet there are plenty of laws that regulate how they are marketed. Medicines too. Alcohol too.

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
 
Nov 2014
30,462
5,606
North Carolina
#4
Cigarettes are legal, and yet there are plenty of laws that regulate how they are marketed.
That would only be relevant here if the decision involved the targeted marketing to people under the age of 18. That's not what is being alleged here.

The basis of this suit - which is quite ridiculous - is they were advertising guns as if they were military weapons, which would be illegal. So basically they are suggesting that advertising legal weapons is against the law if they are similar in appearance to illegal weapons. It's just absurd and such a desperately concocted theory should never have succeeded in a reasonable court.

This would be like saying you can sue the makers of rock candy for selling a product that looks similar to crack. It's just stupid.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
66,738
12,966
By the wall
#5
It'd be fun to watch the can of worms this case opens if they are successful though.

I can see a ton of car makers being sold for how they advertise their vehicles, especially in things like drunk driving accidents.

All sports cars manufacturers would be sued without a doubt.

A woman who get's raped can sue the perfume company for making her irresistible....wow, the possibilities are endless here.
 
Likes: aboutenough
Sep 2014
2,408
548
Barsoom
#6
Gun manufacturers are protected from being sued under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. The only exception is product liabilty from a defect.
 
Likes: pragmatic

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
105,257
94,623
Most Insidious
#8
How is it illegal advertising to advertise a legal product? That has got to be one of the dumbest decisions ever and worthy of our stupid judges. Hopefully this ridiculous suit fails.
The Dodge Challenger.

Beautiful lines, incredible comfort, and the kind of horsepower you've come to rely on when a sea of protesters you disagree with appears on the street in front of you.
 
Mar 2019
1,870
623
DE, US
#10
Gun manufacturers are protected from being sued under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. The only exception is product liabilty from a defect.
That's not correct. Negligent entrustment is also an exception, hard to prove, but it's in the law.

The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. Look it up.