Back Door Way To Undermine 2nd Amendment Rights...

[seer]

Just under handed...

Connecticut Supreme Court says Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington

HARTFORD, Conn. — The Connecticut Supreme Court Thursday narrowly reversed a ruling by a lower court judge dismissing a lawsuit by the families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting against gun manufacturer Remington, allowing the case to proceed.

By a 4-3 decision the court has remanded the landmark gun case back to Bridgeport Superior Court and possibly created a path that other mass shooting victims can follow to get around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, known as PLCAA, which has protected the manufacturers of the AR-15 from lawsuits.

The court ruled that the Sandy Hook families should have the opportunity top prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing what it knew was a weapon designed for military use to civilians such as Nancy and Adam Lanza....


...Legal experts said the case will come down to how the state Supreme Court will interpret two possible exceptions allowed under the arms act — whether Remington can be held liable for so-called “negligent entrustment” or whether it violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Negligent entrustment is defined as “supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.”https://www.theeagle.com/news/nation...afcfbc701.html

[Mountain Man]

I don't see how "negligent entrustment" could possibly apply in this case.

[seer]

I don't see how "negligent entrustment" could possibly apply in this case.

I don't see how the marketing thing could either. because the AR 15 was not designed for military use. But I live in a deep blue state, so who knows...

[Littlejoe]

I don't see how the marketing thing could either. because the AR 15 was not designed for military use. But I live in a deep blue state, so who knows...

Get yourself on that jury and hang it!!! LOL!

[seer]

Get yourself on that jury and hang it!!! LOL!

I would never get on, in any case they haven't called me...

[Sparko]

This is probably something that should be sent to the SCOTUS.

[Cow Poke]

I don't see how the marketing thing could either. because the AR 15 was not designed for military use. But I live in a deep blue state, so who knows...

But it's a scary looking gun. And it's black.

[Catholicity]

Apparently they might have a case. The Ar-15 is a civilian model of a military weapon. And the Images in the Catalog use the lines "When you need to perform under pressure." The case is published here: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supa...1/331CR865.pdf

While its quite clear that Adam Lanza was very very deranged, Upon research it also appears that the mother bore some responsibility and had some severe mental problems. It's possible that the marketing or the way it was marketed did play into the mother's issues. However at the same time we are on a major slippery slope. Notably the makers/designers of the Verruckt slide in Kansas were charged with murder, when realistically the entire system was at a complete failure and we can start with the fact that Kansas has zero laws requiring genuine safety inspections of rides and there is no oversight and theme parks in Kansas regularly thumb their nose at any attempts at regulations. That's another animal to address.
The question with suing a gun manufacturer for marketing is true, what restrictions should apply? How many of them? Are they capable of foreseeing the deranged getting ahold of their weapons for killing of people any more than Olive Garden with its unlimited pasta is capable of controlling someone with an eating disorder from self destructing? The difference here with this question is that in an Eating Disorder you only hurt yourself, with a gun you can hurt so many others. And legally how far should we go as a society to protect others from an individual? I tend to think THAT is a question worth answering

[Sparko]

Apparently they might have a case. The Ar-15 is a civilian model of a military weapon. And the Images in the Catalog use the lines "When you need to perform under pressure." The case is published here: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supa...1/331CR865.pdf

While its quite clear that Adam Lanza was very very deranged, Upon research it also appears that the mother bore some responsibility and had some severe mental problems. It's possible that the marketing or the way it was marketed did play into the mother's issues. However at the same time we are on a major slippery slope. Notably the makers/designers of the Verruckt slide in Kansas were charged with murder, when realistically the entire system was at a complete failure and we can start with the fact that Kansas has zero laws requiring genuine safety inspections of rides and there is no oversight and theme parks in Kansas regularly thumb their nose at any attempts at regulations. That's another animal to address.
The question with suing a gun manufacturer for marketing is true, what restrictions should apply? How many of them? Are they capable of foreseeing the deranged getting ahold of their weapons for killing of people any more than Olive Garden with its unlimited pasta is capable of controlling someone with an eating disorder from self destructing? The difference here with this question is that in an Eating Disorder you only hurt yourself, with a gun you can hurt so many others. And legally how far should we go as a society to protect others from an individual? I tend to think THAT is a question worth answering

they have no case. The second amendment was written to include military weapons. In fact that is the reason given for the 2nd. Because we need a militia. You can't sue the manufacturer for creating a military style weapon and then advertising it. But the AR-15 is in fact a civilian version of a military weapon.

If this goes to the supreme court it will be tossed out as unconstitutional.

[Littlejoe]

Apparently they might have a case. The Ar-15 is a civilian model of a military weapon. And the Images in the Catalog use the lines "When you need to perform under pressure." The case is published here: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supa...1/331CR865.pdf

While its quite clear that Adam Lanza was very very deranged, Upon research it also appears that the mother bore some responsibility and had some severe mental problems. It's possible that the marketing or the way it was marketed did play into the mother's issues. However at the same time we are on a major slippery slope. Notably the makers/designers of the Verruckt slide in Kansas were charged with murder, when realistically the entire system was at a complete failure and we can start with the fact that Kansas has zero laws requiring genuine safety inspections of rides and there is no oversight and theme parks in Kansas regularly thumb their nose at any attempts at regulations. That's another animal to address.
The question with suing a gun manufacturer for marketing is true, what restrictions should apply? How many of them? Are they capable of foreseeing the deranged getting ahold of their weapons for killing of people any more than Olive Garden with its unlimited pasta is capable of controlling someone with an eating disorder from self destructing? The difference here with this question is that in an Eating Disorder you only hurt yourself, with a gun you can hurt so many others. And legally how far should we go as a society to protect others from an individual? I tend to think THAT is a question worth answering

I just don't see how you could kill your mother, steal her Ford van, drive it at high speed into a crowd killing an maiming people and then the victims and families sue Ford saying "you're at fault for this Ford". IMHO, that's what this law suit would effectively do.

Can we now sue fork manufacturers for our obesity problem? Where does the madness end?

[Littlejoe]

they have no case. The second amendment was written to include military weapons. In fact that is the reason given for the 2nd. Because we need a militia. You can't sue the manufacturer for creating a military style weapon and then advertising it. But the AR-15 is in fact a civilian version of a military weapon.

If this goes to the supreme court it will be tossed out as unconstitutional.

Can't the same rationale be used for the Colt 1911? How about the M1 Garand? It's a 30.06 semi-auto. The US military is just now retiring the Beretta M9 9mm, so now you can buy it as a civilian. I just don't see how "military grade" holds any weight in the debate.

[seer]

Can't the same rationale be used for the Colt 1911? How about the M1 Garand? It's a 30.06 semi-auto. The US military is just now retiring the Beretta M9 9mm, so now you can buy it as a civilian. I just don't see how "military grade" holds any weight in the debate.

Exactly, I thought of the M14 which now is often used as a hunting rifle.

[Sparko]

Can't the same rationale be used for the Colt 1911? How about the M1 Garand? It's a 30.06 semi-auto. The US military is just now retiring the Beretta M9 9mm, so now you can buy it as a civilian. I just don't see how "military grade" holds any weight in the debate.

exactly.

[Littlejoe]

Exactly, I thought of the M14 which now often used as a hunting rifle.

Yep! I hunt with 8 guys on a two sections sized hunting lease (we lease it for hunting purposes, a big thing here in Texas). Of the 8 of us, 5 of us have an AR that we hunt with, and a couple of them have more than one caliber and use the one most apropos for the animal being hunted (deer, wild hog, turkey, coyote etc). My sister used an AR to turn away 2 grown men who kicked in her door one morning an hour after my brother in law left for work. It has a legitimate use in both personal protection and hunting.

[rogue06]

Can't the same rationale be used for the Colt 1911? How about the M1 Garand? It's a 30.06 semi-auto. The US military is just now retiring the Beretta M9 9mm, so now you can buy it as a civilian. I just don't see how "military grade" holds any weight in the debate.

Eh, wot? My brother bought one of them in the early 1990s or thereabouts after it had replaced the M1911A1.