Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Supreme Court Allows Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Not good! What is next? Sport cars?
    While I think the lawsuit is silly, I fully support the SCOTUS here. I do not think it is their place to intervene on something like this.

    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    The most similar topic is lawsuits against Tobacco companies... which have already occurred in numerous countries on exactly this topic.

    In the US Tobacco companies agreed to pay $206 billion in 1998. And there's now another wave of lawsuits against them.
    Dramatically different. The tobacco companies got in trouble because their product was dangerous to the user and they deliberately concealed that information. So they got hit with false advertising, negligence, etc.

    None of that applies to guns. Do gun manufacturers tell you that if you shoot someone, they'll be completely unharmed? Of course not. If a gun shoots someone and hurts/kills them, then the product is working exactly as designed and advertised. For the analogy to work, it would have to be discovered that using guns can cause cancer (or some other disease) for the user and that the gun manufacturers were aware of this fact and concealed it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
      Dramatically different. The tobacco companies got in trouble because their product was dangerous to the user and they deliberately concealed that information. So they got hit with false advertising, negligence, etc.

      None of that applies to guns. Do gun manufacturers tell you that if you shoot someone, they'll be completely unharmed? Of course not. If a gun shoots someone and hurts/kills them, then the product is working exactly as designed and advertised. For the analogy to work, it would have to be discovered that using guns can cause cancer (or some other disease) for the user and that the gun manufacturers were aware of this fact and concealed it.
      And there is no legitimate use of tobacco like there is of guns.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Why does it matter? It was a legal rifle under the law.
        The rifle is legal but the claim seems to be about marketing violations. If the rifle continued to be promoted in the same manner as described in the article, especially after several massacres, there should be a decent argument for negligence in their duty of care.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Because I wouldn't put it past the courts in Connecticut to be persuaded by public opinion and actually issue a ruling to "make a statement".
          And then it'll get bounced back up to the Supreme Court where the ruling will be struck down.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
            The tobacco companies got in trouble because their product was dangerous to the user and they deliberately concealed that information. So they got hit with false advertising, negligence, etc.
            They also deliberately targeted their marketing to appeal to minors, which was another huge issue.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
              The rifle is legal but the claim seems to be about marketing violations. If the rifle continued to be promoted in the same manner as described in the article, especially after several massacres, there should be a decent argument for negligence in their duty of care.
              What marketing violations? Did they lie, was it false advertising?
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                What marketing violations? Did they lie, was it false advertising?
                I think, ultimately, this is going to come down to a 1st Amendment rather than a 2nd Amendment issue.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  You don't think Remington should take personal responsibility for their actions?

                  They deliberately made weapons that can kill people, knowing that (statistically speaking) they would likely kill some people. Then some people were killed with those weapons.

                  Why shouldn't they take personal responsibility for an action they made with the full knowledge that it would lead to people's deaths?
                  By your insane logic, a car company should be sued if their car happens to be involved in a case where someone dies.
                  "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                  GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    The most similar topic is lawsuits against Tobacco companies... which have already occurred in numerous countries on exactly this topic.

                    In the US Tobacco companies agreed to pay $206 billion in 1998. And there's now another wave of lawsuits against them.
                    99% of guns, have never killed anyone.
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                      By your insane logic, a car company should be sued if their car happens to be involved in a case where someone dies.
                      Guns aren't even in the top 10 leading causes of death in the US.

                      5a860c28d0307219008b45d4.jpg
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        What marketing violations? Did they lie, was it false advertising?
                        I havent read the specific act they are referring to but generally trade practice acts base conduct issues from duty of care at common law so it wouldn't be about lying or false advertisements but about whether they acted in a responsible manner to prevent potential misuse of their products causing harm.

                        Usually the greater the risk to public safety means a greater duty of care is owed.

                        From Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC,

                        5 Contrary to the defendants’ claim, personal injuries resulting in death
                        that are alleged to have resulted directly from wrongful advertising and
                        marketing practices are cognizable under CUTPA


                        6 The trial court correctly concluded that CUTPA, as applied to the plaintiffs’
                        allegations, fell within PLCAA’s ‘‘predicate’’ exception to immunity for
                        civil actions alleging that a firearms manufacturer or seller knowingly
                        violated a state or federal statute ‘‘applicable to the sale or marketing
                        of [a firearm], and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for
                        which relief [was] sought,’’ and, accordingly, PLCAA did not bar the
                        plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims predicated on the theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by marketing the rifle in question to civilians for
                        criminal purposes and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or
                        contributed to the decedents’ injuries


                        There were 3 dissenting judges on point 5 but affirmed the rest. The appeal wasn't heard because there was no error in law found.

                        It's important to note that the decision arising from this case (based on my limited reading of the article and trial court decision) would only set a precedent for marketing and promotion and what constitutes a violation in those terms for CUTPA. These seem to be the only questions of law the judges would be required to answer. The facts don't set precedents, the decisions do! Just because a case involves guns doesn't mean that the issue put to the courts will be about guns. If the claim is "knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings" then the bolded part is the issue and the decision will be on what the bolded part means and whether it happened in this case and that reasoning sets a precedent for other marketing claims.

                        So don't worry so much gun lovers.

                        Whether it is legal to sell the gun or not is not the question put to them but it might be mentioned as an obiter and therefore hold no weight.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Seems like a thin case to me. I wonder if the Supreme Court is letting it proceed so it can be struck down and form a precedent?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            Seems like a thin case to me. I wonder if the Supreme Court is letting it proceed so it can be struck down and form a precedent?
                            Is it even particularly common for the Supreme Court to outright dismiss a lawsuit? Because remembering, this isn't a ruling as to whether they should win or lose the lawsuit, it's a requested ruling that the lawsuit not be allowed to occur at all. Barring extreme circumstances, I would think that the SCOTUS outright rejecting a lawsuit before arguments are made to be improper.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              Is it even particularly common for the Supreme Court to outright dismiss a lawsuit? Because remembering, this isn't a ruling as to whether they should win or lose the lawsuit, it's a requested ruling that the lawsuit not be allowed to occur at all. Barring extreme circumstances, I would think that the SCOTUS outright rejecting a lawsuit before arguments are made to be improper.
                              This suit is happening in my deep blue state - and with all the emotional baggage around the Sandy Hook shooting I don't see the gun maker getting a fair trial.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                This suit is happening in my deep blue state - and with all the emotional baggage around the Sandy Hook shooting I don't see the gun maker getting a fair trial.
                                I still don't get the legal case being made here, on what grounds could it win?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 05:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                206 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-17-2024, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                285 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                386 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X