Court rules gun maker Remington can be sued over Newtown shooting

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by Calliers, Mar 15, 2019.

  1. Calliers

    Calliers Just got off the hedonic treadmill... Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    45,274
    Likes Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    139
    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.

    The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.

    Remington has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can't be sued under the federal law.

    [​IMG]
    ____________________
    Source: nbcnews
     
  2. amzoun95

    amzoun95 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2019
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    The 2005 federal law, named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, has been cited by other courts that rejected lawsuits against gun makers and dealers in other high-profile shooting attacks, including the 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting and the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings in 2002.











    Tutuapp 9apps Showbox
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  3. IvanV

    IvanV HH Assassin Guild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    1,680
    Trophy Points:
    138
    With all the sympathy for the victims' families that I feel, this sounds wrong. Is there a law that Remington actually broke? If lawmakers declared something (e.g. manufacture, sales and marketing of firearms) a legitimate business, I don't think that a company is or should be culpable simply for being in that business. Restrictions may apply (for instance, you can't advertise alcohol or tobacco to minors), but unless there's an official restriction that they've broken... Whether some intense lobbying and bribery took place between businesses and interest groups on one side and law and policymakers on the other is another matter, but as long as we're talking about simply being in a certain business, the way it's explicitly regulated by the law, I don't see a legal basis for the lawsuit and I also think that allowing such lawsuits opens a dangerous can of worms.

    As long as we're talking about this particular case, where we have a person with deteriorating mental health and a gun owner failing to securely store his weapon (despite the fact that there was a person with deteriorating mental health in the household), there seems to be a string of institutions and individuals who failed at their (formal) responsibilities.

    EDIT: Ooops, a necroed thread. :oops:
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2019

Share This Page

visited