Law U.S. court rules families can sue gun maker over Sandy Hook shooting

[Cubo de Sangre]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-court-rules-families-sue-175738285.html

The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a lawsuit against Remington Outdoor Co Inc to go ahead, giving families who lost loved ones in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting the chance to pursue their claims in an effort to hold the gunmaker liable.

The families of nine of the victims and one survivor have said the manufacturer, along with a gun wholesaler and local retailer, are partially responsible for the carnage at the Newtown, Connecticut, school because they marketed the weapon based on its militaristic appeal.

Militaristic appeal sounds appropriate for militia use. Beyond that, a semi-auto is a semi-auto. Are they going to make the case that Lanza shot up the school because of how the gun looks?

And then there's this.

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, has provided the U.S. firearms industry an almost impenetrable defense against lawsuits by victims of mass shootings and gun violence, broadly shielding Remington and others such as American Outdoor Brands Corp, Sturm Ruger & Co and Vista Outdoor Inc from liability stemming from such incidents.

Seems like federal law would trump Connecticut on this so why are they wasting everyone's time and money?

 

[BudKing8806]

I'm going to sue Coke for giving me diabetes.

 

[BarryDillon]

Good.

 

[Shoemaker]

Companies shouldn't be getting sued for making legal products. Change the law and they'll stop making them. Until then, this just seems like another way to get around actual legislation for which the votes don't exist.

 

[BudKing8806]

Also, my grandpa got hit and killed by a Mack truck. I'm suing their fucking asses.

 

[andnowweknow]

Also, my grandpa got hit and killed by a Mack truck. I'm suing their fucking asses.

that would make sense if that Mack truck was designed to kill human beings. It wasn't, so you won't.

 

[BarryDillon]

that would make sense if that Mack truck was designed to kill human beings. It wasn't, so you won't.

Or if it was marketed specifically for it's astounding human killing capabilities.

 

[Vitor CroCop]

ridiculous

 

[Fedorable]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-court-rules-families-sue-175738285.html




Militaristic appeal sounds appropriate for militia use. Beyond that, a semi-auto is a semi-auto. Are they going to make the case that Lanza shot up the school because of how the gun looks?

And then there's this.




Seems like federal law would trump Connecticut on this so why are they wasting everyone's time and money?

politics and hoping for a settlement.

 

[floivanus]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-court-rules-families-sue-175738285.html




Militaristic appeal sounds appropriate for militia use. Beyond that, a semi-auto is a semi-auto. Are they going to make the case that Lanza shot up the school because of how the gun looks?

And then there's this.




Seems like federal law would trump Connecticut on this so why are they wasting everyone's time and money?

City of Gary, Indiana filed lawsuit against several companies blaming them for their issues pertaining to criminals shooting each other with guns and an apparent lack of parents keeping kids from shooting themselves; the City’s attorney wasted millions of tax payer money, ignoring state law, and later ignoring federal protections for gun makers. So, this really isn’t anything new.

Last year a lawsuit against slidefire was dropped because of the PLCAA being a thing, I see this ending the same way as those cases

 

[Deleted member 484047]

politics and hoping for a settlement.

Why settle, when you can just win in court? You can't be put to blame when someone misuses the legal product you sell.

 

[zebby23]

Also, my grandpa got hit and killed by a Mack truck. I'm suing their fucking asses.

This post wasn’t received well

 

[nac386]

I'm not sure what "militaristic appeal" is, to be honest. Has anybody read an article that actually explains what criteria they are using for that term? Do they mean it was designed to resemble a military weapon, or that it was marketed as such?

The only way I could make sense of a lawsuit like this would be if Remington actually marketed their gun as an effective mass killing device. Even if a product is legal, I would assume a lawsuit could be filed if that legal product was marketed to be used for illegal purposes. But I would put the odds of Remington doing that right around 0%.

 

[method115]

that would make sense if that Mack truck was designed to kill human beings. It wasn't, so you won't.

One could argue they were designed to save humans.

 

[bobgeese]

Well, I hope they enjoy losing.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

I'm going to sue Coke for giving me diabetes.

You should be forced to pay an extreme sugar tax if companies like Coca Cola are not going to be forced to pay for the healthcare crisis that they so readily contribute toward

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

Wow, what kind of ass backwards ruling is that? My god.

Sue Ford when some guy gets in his F150 drunk and runs into your car. Sue GLAD when a guy mugs you and puts your belongings into a GLAD bag.

SUE EVERYBODY!!!

 

[chardog]

silly

 

[andnowweknow]

One could argue they were designed to save humans.

you can argue that grass is blue if you want to.

 

[BudKing8806]

that would make sense if that Mack truck was designed to kill human beings. It wasn't, so you won't.

It makes sense the way I said it if your IQ is above 65. But, okay.