SCOTUS Decision Allows Sandy Hook Survivors to Sue Remington

SCOTUS Decision Allows Sandy Hook Survivors to Sue Remington, iStock-1033924866
SCOTUS Decision Allows Sandy Hook Survivors to Sue Remington, iStock-1033924866

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday “cleared the way” for families of nine victims in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012 to sue Remington Arms Company, owner of Bushmaster, which manufactured the AR-15 rifle used by killer Adam Lanza to murder 26 people, most of them children.

Remington had sought review by the high court, but the court declined, allowing the case to go forward in Connecticut, but it could wind up back in federal court due to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

Plaintiffs in the case have argued that Bushmaster “negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle,” according to ABC News.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Josh Koskoff of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, asserted that the Sandy Hook families have always wanted “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.”

But Fox News is reporting that the high court’s order allowing the lawsuit to move forward in Connecticut “does not mean Remington or other gun manufacturers will face any immediate liability, but it does set the stage for potential court battles over whether or not the gun industry is responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and potentially open the door to other suits in relation to other mass shootings or murders.”

Lanza did not actually purchase the firearms used in the tragic shooting. The guns were purchased legally by his mother, Nancy Lanza, whom he murdered prior to taking her guns to the school, as noted by the New York Times in December 2012, while covering the shooting.

Fox News quoted Remington’s argument in its petition to the high court to hear the case: “The decision will have immediate and severe consequences, exposing the firearms industry to costly and burdensome litigation.”

Timothy D. Lytton, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, was also quoted by Fox predicting the decision will “unleash a flood of lawsuits across the country.”

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which litigates against gun control laws, observed, “While the high court chose not to hear the case at this time, I am sure that if a final verdict goes against Remington it will be back before them.”

“This suit is just plain wrong and should never have been allowed to proceed,” Gottlieb added.

According to CNBC, there is an exception to the PLCAA to allow legal actions “in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit.”

Plaintiffs contend Remington “marketed the weapon ‘as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings,’” CNBC reported.

The argument is that the firearm was marketed in a way that “inspired Adam Lanza to commit the massacre.”

But this seems to ignore the fact that his mother was the buyer, one Washington state retailer noted Tuesday on social media.

CORRECTION: In a story reported Monday regarding a statement by Sen. Bernie Sanders, there was mention of a gun control measure in Oregon. The actual issue is Ballot Measure 40, which may be read here. Our apologies for the error and confusion.


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

122
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
38 Comment threads
84 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
50 Comment authors
LavaMICHAEL JWillStuartMBeach222 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
MICHAEL J
Member
MICHAEL J

The left has now given society free reign to demonize and accuse any company they want. Blaming anyone but the criminal is nothing short of slander and extreme prejudice.
When you can pick and choose who to sue without holding the actual perpetrators accountable, there is something deeply wrong. Where do we draw the line?

Stuart
Member
Stuart

So now the manufacturers of automobiles, aircraft, appliances, lawn maintenance equipment, knives, scissors, tires, etc., etc., are going to be held liable for irresponsible/stupid things that the idiots that purchase them eventually do with them.
Good by economy, good by capitalism, good by America!
What a bunch of unbelievable idiots!

Will
Member
Will

@Stuart,correct ! Any and all inanimate objects are fair game ! Crazy ain’t it ?

Lava
Member
Lava

Crazy is that non-existent people are going to sue! Is Johnny Appleseed going to sue Monsanto?
That’s not even a fair comparison, Johnny Appleseed once existed.

MBeach222
Member
MBeach222

Very sad. Manufacturers are not to blame. Copies of the Remington ads are online: https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/15/court-rules-remington-can-be-sued-for-marketing-guns-for-combat/ Will they sue over car ads that drive faster than the speed limit? Food ads that are high fat? Do after-shave ads obviously turn men into rapists? The anti-gun lobby has no honor and fight by “win at all costs.”

Circle8
Member
Circle8

If some scumbag steals my vehicle and subsequently kills someone does this mean the dead persons family can sue the maker of my vehicle????? The thought that any sane person would agree with this would prove two things; 1) they are crazy and 2) they must be a retarded democrat.

gunnerdd517
Member

I never wanted one of those rifles. Grew up with a bolt action, And thats my first choice. In lite of this decision, I`m in the market for a Rem. Bushmaster.

Circle8
Member
Circle8

I too grew up with a bolt gun but when I joined the service I was issued a M1 Garand plus later a 1911 and a M1 Carbine. I now use a bolt gun to hunt and I used a bolt gun in sniper school but anyone knows a semi is faster than a bolt gun. To each their own.

Firewagon
Member
Firewagon

Just one more example that any nine magpies in robes are not the final arbiter, much less infallible, on questions of constitutional laws governing people of a Republic! “….court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety.” These poor people should join a carnival as they believe they are gifted mind readers. They know they can not sue the owner of the gun used in the Newtown shooting, as the ‘killer’ killed her (his mother), before stealing her guns. They can not sue the killer because he is dead. “Deep pockets” and a misguided agenda to shut down gun… Read more »

BrainMatters
Member
BrainMatters

More and more judicial decisions seem aimed at creating more revenue for the legal profession. There is no other conceivable reason to open up such a wide loophole unnecessarily for frivolous lawsuits.

RoyD
Member
RoyD

You know what you call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? That’s right; a start.

Circle8
Member
Circle8

Actually an appetizer for other bottom feeders. 100,000 would be a snack. To get serious would require close to 300,000. Did everyone notice that medical treatment was affordable until lawyers got involved and still the amount of patients who die from mistakes has not reduced?

Will
Member
Will

@Circle8,them ambulance chasers are total scumbags !

CEMinMO
Member
CEMinMO

These blatant attacks on rights and lawful commerce should be structured as “loser pays.”

C Step
Member
C Step

ALL of the claims brought by the plaintiffs except ONE were dismissed. The only claim not dismissed was for wrongful marketing. This case will not change much, because there isn’t much law that can be changed on that basis. It certainly will not overturn the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and I have my sincere doubts that it be anything more than a blip on the radar of the gun debate. The Sandy Hook shooting was committed by a 20 year old who had stolen a Bushmaster rifle from his mother. He killed her, went to the school,… Read more »

Firewagon
Member
Firewagon

Duly noted about the expense of defending against a lawsuit. Also, my reason for defending myself against something I know I am not guilty of will happen long before I employ, at my expense, any lawyer!

The raping of General Flynn is a prime example of powerful entities destroying the lives of people. Sell my home to defend myself or to pay some lawyer has me with visions of that conflagration in Waco, TX when they come for me!

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

LUDICROUS!!!!!! And this asinine ruling came from the “supreme court”. The “supreme court” that is SUPPOSED to make sure the LAWS OF THE LAND are ENFORCED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PHFFFFFT!!!!!!!

Knute
Member
Knute

IMO, that is all the current US injustice system is worth. One big raspberry!
PHFFFFT…

a.x. perez
Member
a.x. perez

It is rather clever how the lawyers for plaintiffs phrased the lawsuit, not claiming that the weapon itself was dangerous but was advertised in such a way to attract unfit buyers.

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

These lawyers have opened up PANDORA’S BOX for EVERY manufacturer of ANYTHING to be SUED when a person gets hurt for any reason.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Methinks Remington ought to demand ballistics evidence that it was projectiles from THAT Bushmaster rifle that were the proximate cause of death to EACH of the nine plaintiff’s next of kin that died. Anyone else remember the TeeVee interview with the first Medical Examiner who entered the scene after the alledged shooting… examined quite a number of the dead, (not sure if he examined ALL of them) and, upon exiting the building, was interviewed on camera. He stated that “ALL the victims I examined were killed by gunshot, from a handgu, at fairly close range. “. We also never saw… Read more »

BigJim
Member
BigJim

This is exactly the same story we first heard, after the massacre and is what we saw the trooper unloading out of the trunk of the perps car as well.
This is a Kavanaugh hack scheme as well.

StWayne
Member
StWayne

Dave — Once again, great article. I understood your previous article to be about measure 40: illegal gun control by other means. I wish all you Oregon gun owners luck when you have to tell the bad guy to hold on for just a bit because you have to drive to Lake Such&Such to retrieve your firearm from off the bottom of the lake, but that you’ll be back soon to deal with him. Or that when you do, his family will be able to hold you accountable for defending yours, who will then be able to go after the… Read more »

Boomer
Member
Boomer

If I were trying this case the first thing i would do is introduce the documentary “We need to talk about Sandyhook.” That is 2 1/2 hours of hard facts that dispute the event ever occurred. It’s difficult to find now that YouTube has been taking down anything that goes against the official narrative but worth the effort. Something is seriously wrong with our court system if the ton of evidence that questions all of the mistakes made in this staged event is not allowed to be heard. This is a pivotal 1st Amendment moment.

Lava
Member
Lava

I never thought anyone on Ammoland but me would say this!

Rock R
Member
Rock R

You are all forgetting the biggest accident creator of all time !!!!!
THE CELL PHONE !!!!!!!
In any accident, sue Apple, Samsung, all of them for distracted Driving !!! Distracted workmanship, even if your Fast food is cold !!!! You can be sure the employee was checking a text message !!!! Through in Facebook and the Tweeters just for good measure as well !!!!!

Nosh Itsherlock
Member
Nosh Itsherlock

I’ve yet to find the reasoning of the court for its decision, or the reasoning of the dissenters.

Truth
Member
Truth

So SCOTUS is allowing fake families sue Remington when no one was killed. I want to know how Kavanah and Goerch voted on this one.

Knute
Member
Knute

They don’t call it; “Political Theatre” for nothin’!

Lava
Member
Lava

These families are already being paid hugely for their Crisis Act. Now their pseudonyms are going to get money from Remington!

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

The whole lawsuit should have been tossed out in CT where it originated. What kind of insane psychopathic political whore is behind this nonsense? The AR15 is a PDW according to the Department of Homeland Security. That is what THEY Call the ones issued to their “enforcement” officers! That is a PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON. It was designed to DEFEND people, not to assault them. How it was used and the fact that Lanza murdered his mother to get it should be a clue to the idiots behind the suit. I can only IMAGINE how much money Remington is loosing just… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Don’t forget, CT are one of those states that have made possession of “assault weapons” illegal, and require registration of all semu-automatic weapons. They HAVE to allow this case to go forward to scratch up a tiny bit of support for such anti-constitutional laws.

mlhtd51
Member
mlhtd51

Lets SUE the Parents who Raised the Kid, go back to where the Problem Started.

Rock
Member
Rock

So I will be able to sue the car manufacturer of a drunk divers vehicle that hit’s my car/family/self AND sue the alcohol manufacture that made that driver get drunk even though the ENTIRE mess was the drinker/drivers decision ???? Maybe sue the companies that sold the drink manufacturer the water, grain, cans or bottles, bottle caps, machinery and personnel that assembled said drink… This complete bullshit SCOTUS decision if F**KING ridiculous !!!!!!!!!! The weapon cannot fire it’s self, EVER, period. The person holding that weapon, driving a car, flying a plane, operating a locomotive, pumping gas has the END… Read more »

Nosh Itsherlock
Member
Nosh Itsherlock

Your analogy is flawed. In the case you posit, the drunk stole the car before using it to kill someone. That’s what happened here. Lanza stole the firearm. Although the complainants here just want to destroy the 2nd Amendment, they could just as easily use this logic to sue the entire media establishment for “influencing” their wretched monster of a son.

Justista
Member
Justista

That’s one cat America doesn’t want let out of the bag. If allowed to proceed all of America will suffer.

Gdubb
Member
Gdubb

Another great one Dave. Thank you for the correction- for a minute there I thought I was losing my marbles. This case will go nowhere unless it us litigated before an activist libtard judge – there is simply no reasonable point to the plaintiff’s argument. The firearm was marketed to the murderer’s mother, not the murderer. And I dont see how they will be able to prove that Remington designed and marketed their Bushmaster rifle specifically for illegal purposes, up to and including murdering humans. This is laughable. It begs the question- if someone purposefully runs over another person using… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

Yes, because all car manufacturers know that their cars can and will be used for illegal purposes. One of the main purposes of automobiles is to kill other human beings so of course the suit would go forward. (just to make sure that everyone understands..this is SARCASM)

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@CL – Thanks for that last point (in parentheses). Amazing how often posts are misread… Including by yours truly. However you are more right than you suppose. Consider that well over 100M rifles were used to kill <300 people in 2018, while ?200M? cars were used to kill ~30k. Thus cars are close to 100 times as deadly as rifles. Even assuming all rifle deaths are inflicted using an AR15 and that there are only 20M AR15s – cars are 10 times as deadly as AR15s. This of course ignores that the 10-25% of AR inflicted deaths which are legally… Read more »

Vince
Member
Vince

Overambitious products claims are a standard of advertising. You’ve all seen the SUVs’ that drive up the side of a mountain without a road, or the beautiful girl who only has eyes for a guy who drinks a certain beer. This type of merchandising has become to be known in the trade as PUFFERY. Nobody believes it, but it lights up the individuals imagination which can help sell the product. If judgement goes against Remington, I am fairly sure that most companies would move their assets out of the USA. The end result is no jobs, no money and no… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Vince, The only thing left will be the Congressional Hot Air industry.

Ryben Flynn
Member
Ryben Flynn

Do the families suing understand that they when they eventually lose they will have to repay Remington and the lawyers and Court costs all they money spent to defend the company?

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Not to worry for them. If that happens, instead of coming out of the families’ pockets as it should, the Government will likely cover any expenses with OUR tax dollars.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Grigory, No government, out of the goodness of their heart, pays peoples’ legal bills.

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Wild Bill, they do if the whole scam was a government operation from the start and the “families” are acting in behalf of said government’s “interests”, in this case gun control or restriction.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@RF – Most states protect certain assets from lawsuits, so that individuals are not left penny-less and on the dole. In general a home, a car, tools of one’s trade, retirement funds, and some amount of cash are safe. Just how much do you think R. would get from these families? If on the other hand the lawyers handling the case, and the “charitable” organizations funding it, were held liable – that would go much further to chill such cases.

im_frank
Member
im_frank

SCOTUS routinely takes a pass on cases where the law is clearly stated and there should be no conflict by a lower court review. Our lower courts, on the other hand, have a terrible track record of ignoring or attempting to change the law by legal fiat instead of applying the law that Congress has already written/certified. The hand-wringing over this development is premature – wait for the case to work its way through the lower court system. Regardless of the lower court decision, it will undoubtedly end up back at SCOTUS because neither side will be satisfied if they… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

However, Remington should not need to go through the time and expense to defend themselves from this frivolous suit. The organizations and “families” bringing suit should be required to pay Remington for all their time and costs in defending themselves. The same pretext could be used to sue anyone and everyone.

Bunk
Member

Does this now,open the door,to sue vehicle manufacturers and knife manufacturers? Accidents will still make them liable.maybe even hyperdermics,homeless in California can now sue for living conditions and sanctuary cities included.or these liberal tongue-jackets could take them in to their homes,

Arizona Don
Member
Arizona Don

This may open the door to all kinds of lawsuits against all kinds of manufactures. Not just guns and automobiles. Tools even like nail guns and hammers.

There is currently a law on the books protecting industry from such liability lawsuits so it does appear sooner or later the supreme court may have to take this.

In today’s sue happy world no company will be able to survive if protections are done away with.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@AD, Lego is threatening to leave the US, and the Association of Pickle Fork Manufacturers is working on an Amicus brief.

BigJim
Member
BigJim

Except in China.

ShooterOne
Member
ShooterOne

I agree with nearly everyone here. We do need to be very vigilant and ready to defend our 2nd Amendment. I am almost certain every post on here and all pro-gun websites and organizations are under intense scrutiny at all times. Wondering what the military will do when we begin defending ourselves? Will they turn their guns on their own citizenry? What is going to become of this country?

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

One only need to keep in mind the actions of active military during the aftermath of Katrina to be able to figure out your answer. YES, the military will turn their guns on their own citizens. It has happened all over the world, time and time again and when it boils right down to it, for you to think otherwise is self delusion. As for being under scrutiny? WHO CARES! They can go have intercourse with themselves.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@USA – Sample size is simply not large enough to be relevant.

tomcat
Member
tomcat

A couple of years ago Toyota had a problem with their computers in the cars and they would accelerate to high speeds without warning or operator involvement. Several people were either killed or badly injured but Toyota beat the lawsuit against them. This was a design problem and they should have been responsible whereas the Bushmaster and Sandy Hook is a crazy problem and not one caused by Remington.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@TC – It was suspected compute problem, but actually the floor mats were sliding forward on top of the accelerator. Now all new cars have anchors to hold floor mats, not just Toyota. I think that you are wrong about restitutions, but I do know they paid for recalls and modifications to prevent the problem AND believe there was governmental penalty fees. Liability was of course reduced because (1) users slid mats forward with their feet and didn’t pull them back (victim blaming) and (2) this was a universal design flaw that had existed since the first floor mat and… Read more »

ShooterOne
Member
ShooterOne

I partially agree with you. I have to wonder what it was about Toyota that the problem was brought forward after so many years of vehicles having floor mats? I am not stating that Toyota should have paid, however Remington should not have to pay when the atrocity was purely and simply committed by a deranged individual.

tomcat
Member
tomcat

@ Finnky I followed this very closely when it happened and I know that Toyota dodged the bullet by claiming it was the floormats but there were tests performed by engineers that showed certain conditions and air waves caused the computers to act when they shouldn’t have. My point is that they got off on the premise of “owners were at fault, not the manufacturer”. Remington should be given the same benefit of the doubt.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@SO – I agree. My guess is that something about the shape of the floor, combined with lower seats causing feet to slide forward more, plus accelerator close to the floor – caused this to be a more frequent issue. @TC – Thanks for the additional info. Was not aware of that. Also agree that Remington should be given benefit of the doubt – they made firearms virtually identical to those made by other manufacturers. Advertisements attempt to create a distinction in consumers minds, so must be somewhat fantastical in order to distinguish among such similar product. Unlike Toyota, Remington’s… Read more »

tomcat
Member
tomcat

@ Finnky GM pulled a slick one a short while after that. The ignition switch is weak on some of their cars and can turn off which leaves the engine without power and no power brakes and no power steering. Accidents happened and their “recall” was to put a small ring on the key so you could not load it up with key and weigh it down. My car still has the little key ring attached to the key. They dodged a 50cal. bullet with that one and the Obama Admin. let them get away with it. Car companies are… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

I work with, and understand, car computer systems pretty well. Those “brain” computers that control engine function rely in input from quite a number of sensors.. including road speed, throttle position, gear engaged, etc. Unless that Toyota model was new enough to be “drive by wire” (in other words, the driver inputs desired throttle application by way of the foot treadle, which then sends a signal to the computer to respond accordingly, rather than the long tanding method where the driver’s foot mecahnically moves parts on the engine to increase power output). there is no way the “computer” could be… Read more »

Greg K
Member
Greg K

Those Toyotas are “Fly by Wire,” and computers can and have done some fairly wild crap. When I first heard about the Toyotas, I thought it may be pinched wiring harnesses, but turned out that the end of the throttle pedal was catching on the floor mats. It’s funny though that some of they guys in the Toyota garages said, “they were applying a runnability update at that very same mat update.” You make the call…BTW, the first “Fly by Wire” I encountered was an 89 BMW 740 or 750 with a V-12 and dual computers, with dual throttle bodies.… Read more »

RoyD
Member
RoyD

While none of the three Camrys I have and do own, 1994, 1999, and 2009 had any of those type of problems I did have a Chevrolet that did exactly that. It was a 1982 Cavalier that was a top of the line model. It, on occasion and for no discernable reason, would go into hard acceleration and nothing I did would stop it until it decided to quit doing it on its own. This would last for up to 15 to 20 seconds. This always occurred at highway speed (55 mph). It was very scary. These excursions from the… Read more »

Greg K
Member
Greg K

On those early C3 Gms, they took the Tach signal from the the tach, not the distributor module. Some times the tach would feedback making the computer think the thing was at idle or just below, so the computer would run the stepper idle control motor up full open on carb models. If memory serves, there’s a tsb for that…also right around that time Cavaliers had the throttle body inj systems. The Idle air control automatically backs out fully for start up and high idle. There’s a very good chance the same thing was happening on these.

tomcat
Member
tomcat

@ RoyD, I agree with you and when three automotive engineers say it was the electronics I tend to believe their educated conclusion. One even duplicated the event.

Lava
Member
Lava

RoyD, there was a Corvette that would stick in high gear. Before the owner could get it fixed, the brakes were burned out and the car stuck in 100 mph! No one could figure out why the ignition key wouldn’t just shut off, but a loose bolt could have caused the transmission problem.
.
Tomcat, besides people being killed, at least one man was prosecuted for murder because his car rear-ended someone when it accelerated.

Jaque
Member
Jaque

All Justice Roberts did was to insure the lawyers keep ripping off the defendants. Its absolutely certain that the courts and the legal profession are a giant conspiracy to prevent the common man from defending himself. They work together to stretch out any legal matter to insure they steal the biggest amount from their clients. The legal crooks have their own language and dictionary to exclude even a college grad from acting as his own lawyer. They make one pay giant fees to file lawsuits and bigger fees to defend yourself. The legal system is a racket and designed to… Read more »

Will
Member
Will

@J,Roberts is as useless as tits on a boar hog !

macdog
Member
macdog

Agree Will, didn’t the “honorable justice Roberts stick his ass in the air for a previous decision on Osama care? Didn’t POS adam lonza kill his mother and steal her weapon the Remington bush master. How’s it Remington’s responsibility Justice Roberts. Hey Justice Roberts grow a pair! If not, resign and take Darth Vader Ginsburg with you. It’s too bad the POS lanza wasn’t on u-tube swinging and twisting from a tree. Any other mass shooters need to swing and twitch until their last. No appeals.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

SCOTUS rarely takes cases on subjects on which there are not opposing rulings by the federal circuit courts. That way they can use opposing lower court opinions as a basis for their ruling. As I understand it, this case has selected a unique argument why they are not covered by FOPA. Maybe we need several similar cases brought to conservative circuits so that SCOTUS can have multiple disagreeing opinions on which to base their work. This is what make judge (sp?) Benitez’s written opinion on “CA standard capacity mag ban” so nice.

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Weren’t we hearing a bunch of crap about fifty or sixty some odd thousand warrants and indictments last year around this time? Seems like it was “any day now”, then “after the mid-terms”, then “after Thanksgiving”, “after Christmas”, “after New Years”, “after the new Democratic House is sworn in”, “some day, you’ll see”.

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

LOL! That’s a laugh! Look at the negative votes on mine where I dared to suggest that we actually put the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment back in force and effect.

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Hi USA! Then please enlighten me. What IS going on? From where I stand, all I see are tons of empty, unkept, promises from Dear Leader or worse yet, him doing the exact opposite of these promises, such as protecting our 2A but instead giving us a bumpstock ban while calling for age increases to own certain guns plus red flag laws.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Laws and court rulings are made by lawyers for lawyers to acquire money. Lawyers best be considered as members of a guild; not as independent professionals. I know of no constitutional citation demanding that all lawyers be officers of the court. The court system extorts defendants and degrades citizens to sub-citizens at an accelerating rate. A free prohibited person is denied by law rights exercised by other citizens is a sub-citizen by law. Prohibited persons are a legally established underclass intertwined with society. The courts are no longer a separate branch defending against oppressive government, but now an extension of… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

Which way did each “Justice” vote?

Jim
Member
Jim

i will bet money JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS DIDN’T VOTE FOR THIS TREASON.
and let me say here.
IT’S WE THE PEOPLE WHO DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISN’T CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, NOT THOSE IDIOTS IN BLACK ROBES, OR CONGRESS.

Will
Member
Will

@Jim,I agree. I will bet money that Roberts did !

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

And one of the ways we do that is by being on juries and voting NOT GUILTY for so called “law” violations. NO VICTIM, NO CRIME. NO CRIME…NOT GUILTY your “honor”.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

Last time I brought up “Jury Nullification” with a liberal, they flat out called me crazy for suggesting such a thing. Refused to believe that Juries exist for a reason. If all juries do is read the evidence, why waste so much of so many peoples time going through selection etc – when experts can read the evidence so much more efficiently. Juries exist to not only determine guilt, but to gauge the reasonableness of the law. As with everything else about our government – it revolves around checks and balances. We the jury, limit the power of the court.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

forgot the soap box, and the letter box

Grigori
Member
Grigori

I consider that important information yet nobody seems to be sharing it!

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@USA – However even in a win, they will be out attorney costs. As we all know, court fights are expensive and bar to recover those costs from plaintiff is quite high. Were I on jury, I would award legal costs plus punitive damages to be paid by plaintiff’s lawyers if they are not able. However I suspect Remington will be lucky to get out of the first court without a judgement against them – after which they will have to work their way back up the chain through state courts and back to federal court, all at great expense.… Read more »

Quatermain
Member
Quatermain

Time to launch a crippling class action lawsuit against maybe GM, using this decision as the basis. I suspect things would change rapidly.

Will
Member
Will

@Q,you’re right. It might had been a Chevy that got Lanza to Sandy Hook. Remington will prevail in this bullshit !

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

No, it was Honda. Make sure to sue the right car company.

Dave
Member
Dave

I have less faith they’ll do the right thing with the NY case they’re going to hear.

Paul71
Member
Paul71

Even if they did go in favor of The NY case , the ruling will just be ignored . The states will just keep applying their individual laws and take a chance of winning in court. It won’t change a thing.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@Paul71 – Hate to say it, but I fear you are right. We have to pay legal costs to fight each infringement, one at a time. Then even in rare event we receive expense reimbursement, the offending legislators are not impacted as they pay from taxpayer money. Would be nice if federal court would imprison legislators for egregious civil rights abuses. I suspect such treatment would give them pause.

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

Better yet, do it like the Socialists here want us to be more like, China, and give them the ultimate punishment.

Rec
Member
Rec

NYNRA will probably win NY case but without strict scrutiny decision. Essentially it will only apply to NY law as opposed to setting a precedent

Get Out
Member
Get Out

Once again SCOTUS isn’t doing their jobs. Does this mean the families of 9/11 victims should be able to sue Boeing because terrorists took control of their planes? We’ll be able to sue Chevrolet, Ford, Toyota etc. if their vehicles are in an accident too right? Lanza stole the weapons after he murdered his mother, the lawful owner.

Rec
Member
Rec

I agree but lets at least be educated about the issue. The Connecticut supreme court already threw out five of the claims by the sandy hook victim families. What remains is a suit based on the way the gun was advertised. That is NOT analogous to Boeing advertisements, and Chevy, ford, toyota have to put fine print disclaimers for example when they advertise people driving their cars at 100 mph, or jumping over ramps etc, saying it is a professional driver on a closed course. Also what was decided by SCOTUS today is not the case, but a denial of… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

So Remington’s advertising showed someone shooting up a school and said that our rifles are best for mass murdering people??

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Had ANY of you watched the 1992, the 2008 and the 2016 DNC Conventions, you would KNOW the democrats plan a communist America.
It is called a ‘sitrep’, that is, a situation report.
The anti-American communist democrats are so sure of themselves, they blithely blabber about their plans for a totalitarian America at these DNC conventions.

Jim
Member
Jim

well.
we the PEOPLE HAVEN’T SPOKEN ON THIS AS YET.
and it’s those RADICAL LAWLESS TREASONOUS COMMUNIST DEMORATS WHO ARE PUSHING FOR A WAR.
by trying to TAKE OUR ARMS OF FREEDOM, our GREAT forefathers SHOWED US HOW TO DEAL WITH TRAITORS, AND IS WHY WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT.
but it LIKE THE CONSTITUTION IS USELESS IF NOT APPLIED.

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

Yea, except the part of the 2nd amendment that is NECESSARY has been taken away from us so I guess we will just go out one by one against their forces of 20-100. Seems like we have a good chance with that!

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Which side will Kavanaugh come down on?
So far, he has aligned with the communist democrats far too often.

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Tetejuan, that is what I am wondering! Conservative sheeple fell for the reverse psychology PSYOPS that Govco pulled on them and supported statist Kavanaugh, despite his statist leanings. Since Trump took office, instead of draining the Swamp as promised, he has appointed, nominated, and hired, from it at every opportunity.

Jim
Member
Jim

Grigori.
don’t also forget, AG Barr is TOTAL ANTI-GUN, and he DEFENDED THAT PUNK SNIPER WHO MURDERED Randy Weavers WIFE WHILE SHE WAS HOLDING HER BABY IN HER ARMS.
i am WONDERING HOW MUCH MORE ARE WE THE PEOPLE GOING TO TAKE FROM ALL THOSE CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS BEFORE WE ACT?

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Exactly, Jim! Barr is but one more Swamp creature, handpicked by “our lord and saviour, DJT”!!!!

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

You’re not allowed to say bad things about the orange Fuhrer so STOP IT!

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Funny. But, NONE of you cowards said anything like that about the Kenyan usurper. Obama changed the United States government into an adjunct to support and aid a one world totalitarian government.

Grigori
Member
Grigori

I had nothing good to say about Obammy. I didn’t vote fo him, or any other Democrat, ever for POTUS. I did vote for Trump, hoping against hope that he would keep his promises to seal the border, protect 2A, drain The Swamp, and a multitude of other good things. Instead, he has frequently done the polar opposite of these things. I am not nearly as disappointed in Obama for two reasons: 1) I didn’t vote for him and 2) I expected nothing good to come from his Presidency. I did vote for Trump. He has rarely failed to disappoint.… Read more »

Will
Member
Will

@Grigori,I haven’t run across one person who has said they voted for the African born mooslim from Kenya,or who has admitted to it. The bull dyke would have been a continuation of that black scumbag. Trump really fucked up their parade ! TRUMP/PENCE 2020 !

Grigori
Member
Grigori

LOL! So it would appear, Courageous Lion!

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Wow, your democrat speaking points come through loud & clear.

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Funny, I say things that concur or agree with someone who gets a lot of upvotes and I get downvotes. I say the same thing or similar as other fellow pro-gunners who later get lots of upvotes and I get downvotes. I must have made enemies for life from among the the “No-Matter-What-Trumpers. Hilarious!

Will
Member
Will

@Grigori,you’re right ! That is really hilarious ! LMFAO !

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

You cowards have sat by as the federal government became a totalitarian monster. LISTEN to federal employees as they rant about “OUR PLAN”. The State Dept, CIA, FBI and so many more federal agencies are stand alone ententies that further THEIR goals, NOT those of the American People.
It is LONG past time to water the Tree of Liberty. A hundred fifty years of inaction has created the monster we now see as Washington, D.C.

Rec
Member
Rec

Kavanaugh has been pro-2A on 95% of his rulings.

Grigori
Member
Grigori

The question I have is regarding who decides whether or not The Supremes will hear a case like this. Is it the Chief “Justice”? The whole court? Certain “Justices”? Who?

I would like to see a breakdown of which wanted to hear it, which did not, etc.

This is important to know.

Rec
Member
Rec

a cert requires four of the justices voting to allow the case to be heard. The ruling means only three of them wanted to hear the case — at this point. They may well vote for cert after the lower court decides the case

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Thank You!

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@G, What Rec says is true, but this Neil Gorsuch article outlines the secret inner workings of the S. CT. : ” … Neil Gorsuch has only been on the Supreme Court for a short while. Recently he ignited the fire of liberty and broke 40 years of precedent when he refused to join the SCOTUS “cert pool.” The cert pool was established in 1973 during the early days of the Burger Court, in order to review the near 8,000 petitions received each term. In practice, the petitions are apportioned among the Court’s law clerks, who then circulate a memo… Read more »

Finnky
Member
Finnky

Do you want the justices spending all their time choosing which cases to take, or thinking through all aspects of the cases they do take?
Those “clerks” are not your typical file clerks, but smart-young lawyers hand picked by the justices. They work hard to represent their patron justice and are not “the swamp”. Arguing to eliminate ability of the justices to leverage their abilities through their clerks would be to argue for eliminating the court.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Finnky, An interesting observation. I will try to reply. First, I was just adding some little known detail to what another had correctly written. Second, I am well aware of what a judge’s clerk does. Third, The S. Ct is not working on any task that was set out for them by the Constitution. If one read Article III and compared that to what the S. Ct. does on a daily basis, it would be an eye opener. Finally, the job of S. Ct justice has been made so easy that a ninety-nine year old women with cancer can hold… Read more »

Grigori
Member
Grigori

Thank You, Wild Bill!