NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: Jito463 on March 14, 2019, 01:10:03 PM
-
https://nypost.com/2019/03/14/sandy-hook-parents-remington-lawsuit-allowed-to-move-forward/
The Sandy Hook parents have been given permission by the CT supreme court to sue Remington over claims that they mis-marketed the AR-15.
HARTFORD, Conn. — 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.
So, federal law already says it can't happen, common sense says it shouldn't happen, but this court decided it will happen.
The majority of the high court agreed with most of the lower court’s ruling and dismissed most of the lawsuit’s allegations, but allowed a wrongful marketing claim to proceed.
Of course, they're already making it about the gun.
Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the state Supreme Court during arguments in November 2017 the Bushmaster rifle and other AR-15-style rifles were designed as military killing machines and should never have been sold to the public.
“The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety,” Koskoff said Thursday. “Today’s decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal.”
Military-style rifles have been used in many other mass shootings, including in Las Vegas in October 2017 when 58 people were killed and hundreds more injured.
Statements such as this ignore the thousands upon thousands of hunters and enthusiasts who enjoy using the AR-15 because of its versatility and ease of use. It must be evil, because it looks scary. Fortunately, in a case like this the impetus is on the plaintiff to prove their case, but that all depends on how leftist the deciding judge(s) end up being. Hopefully this goes all the way to the SCOTUS and gets tossed out on its unsightly posterior.
-
More useless litigation but it's Connecticut. They don't seem to realize that far more killing is done with handguns than rifles. And I don't buy into the ridiculous argument "if we could save just one more life" because that argument could extend to automobiles, baseball bats, homemade bombs, etc. But, that's not happening. "Only" black rifles kill people - oops that should read only people using black rifles - oops it's not the persons fault, just the firearm or, in this case, the firearm manufacturers fault. But, I do feel for the people, especially the parents, that lost someone. But it's not right to focus on the firearm. They don't sue automobile manufacturers because of a drunk driver that kills someone or a terrorist that runs over a bunch of people riding bikes, etc. It's interesting that these arguments fall on deaf ears though.
-
so using this logic we can now sue ford , chevy etc .ect. if hit by a drunk driver ...
-
so using this logic we can now sue ford , chevy etc .ect. if hit by a drunk driver ...
Yep, exactly what the federal law was meant to prevent.
-
Years ago, a Pontiac dealership sold a used Firebird TransAm to a teenager they had hired part time to wash cars. He wrecked the car at over 100 mph killing one of the other kids with him. The dead kid's parents sued both the dealership, for selling him the car, and GM for building it. GM chose to settle out of court. I suspect they wanted to avoid the risk of an adverse judgement which could set a precedent for future suits.
-
Years ago, a Pontiac dealership sold a used Firebird TransAm to a teenager they had hired part time to wash cars. He wrecked the car at over 100 mph killing one of the other kids with him. The dead kid's parents sued both the dealership, for selling him the car, and GM for building it. GM chose to settle out of court. I suspect they wanted to avoid the risk of an adverse judgement which could set a precedent for future suits.
Do you have a reference for this story, or am I missing the sarcasm here!? :-[