Oregon Rifleworks
Gun Deals
Southwest Firearms Forum
J&B Firearm Sales
Low Price Guns
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Sporting Systems
Welcome to Northwest Firearms
Join our community, sign up for free today!
Sign Up

SCOTUS handed down one of the most dangerous rulings against 2ND Amendment & the gun industry

Messages
1,880
Reactions
4,104
There was no ruling, they simply declined to hear the case. If the lawsuit is successful then the manufacturer can still appeal the case.
While true, the decision to not review does two things:

1) It makes the law against suing firearm manufacturers inherently weak to meaningless because cases won't get knocked out pre-trial so long as there is some clever twisted argument, so expect more lawsuits.

2) Lawsuits are insanely expensive. The plaintiffs could lose the case and at the same time, the legal fees spent defending the case could put a manufacturer out of business. For the 2A side, that's losing by winning.
 

arakboss

Messages
3,120
Reactions
5,426
While true, the decision to not review does two things:

1) It makes the law against suing firearm manufacturers inherently weak to meaningless because cases won't get knocked out pre-trial so long as there is some clever twisted argument, so expect more lawsuits.

2) Lawsuits are insanely expensive. The plaintiffs could lose the case and at the same time, the legal fees spent defending the case could put a manufacturer out of business. For the 2A side, that's losing by winning.
I would agree that it is significant and could ruin a lot of small businesses that can't fund their defense.
 
Messages
608
Reactions
1,733
Messages
252
Reactions
181
Wow.
This thread is either based on lack of comprehension of the Judicial branch, or outright hypocrisy.

If SCOTUS did not allow the lawsuit to move forward , they could rightfully be accused of activism from the bench.
Or do the members of this board prefer that SCOTUS pre-empts any suit that they do not personally agree with ?
 
Messages
16
Reactions
23
The firearms companies will win. Companies aren't responsible for misuse of their products no matter how you want to interpret their advertisements. You can't blame anyone but the individual committing the crime, because the individual committing the crime, unless they're under duress by those that folks are wantin to blame, is one hundred percent responsible for the crime and all that happens during and after it >:O
 

66PonyCar

Messages
1,255
Reactions
5,160
SCOTUS can't hear every case that's brought before the court. They can wait for the case to work its way through the lower courts and then, if they want, can agree to hear the final appeal. I agree it will be a costly process for the firearm manufacturers.
 
Messages
1,880
Reactions
4,104
Wow.
This thread is either based on lack of comprehension of the Judicial branch, or outright hypocrisy.

If SCOTUS did not allow the lawsuit to move forward , they could rightfully be accused of activism from the bench.
Or do the members of this board prefer that SCOTUS pre-empts any suit that they do not personally agree with ?
You talk as if this case is occurring in a vacuum.

In the case we are discussing, there is a law which shields gun manufacturers from, as the trial court found, exactly this type of lawsuit. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled the opposite. What this demonstrates is that there is disagreement about the scope and meaning of the protection offered by the PLCAA. Further, the PLCAA is a Federal law currently being applied by a state.

Those two characteristics: 1) what does the law mean and 2) how should states apply this Federal law, puts this case squarely in the Federal Supreme Court's wheelhouse. Taking the case is not judicial activism, cases like this are the reason SCOTUS exists at all. The fact that it decided to punt and burden Remmington with litigation where the defense costs alone through the appeals process will likely cost 6-7 figures, is extremely troubling.

Secondly, the idea that groups will try to destroy the firearm industry through the expense of litigation is not some kind of foil hattery, it's a quote (see below). Note also how these groups seek to override the 2A by coercing manufacturers to self-censor so to speak. Think about this, the government may be prohibited from banning S&W from selling revolvers by virtue of the 2A, but nobody can force S&W to sell those revolvers if S&W itself chooses not to. What does the 2A mean if no manufacturer will supply arms to the public?

HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was quoted as saying that gun manufacturers that did not comply would suffer "death by a thousand cuts", and Eliott Spitzer said that those who didn't cooperate would have bankruptcy lawyers "knocking at your door".

In January 2005, New York City passed a law allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that did not voluntarily implement certain gun control measures.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,880
Reactions
4,104
SCOTUS can't hear every case that's brought before the court. They can wait for the case to work its way through the lower courts and then, if they want, can agree to hear the final appeal. I agree it will be a costly process for the firearm manufacturers.
The thing that irks me about this process, is that it shifts the burden of making law to private parties. The government likes to pretend there is some holy process but the truth is, the cost and burden of making a law that will benefit all Americans is falling solely on Remington's shoulders at this point. That kinda sucks.
 
Last edited:

Alexx1401

Messages
8,215
Reactions
19,198
The firearms companies will win. Companies aren't responsible for misuse of their products no matter how you want to interpret their advertisements. You can't blame anyone but the individual committing the crime, because the individual committing the crime, unless they're under duress by those that folks are wantin to blame, is one hundred percent responsible for the crime and all that happens during and after it >:O
The danger to stuff like this is not that they will or should win. It's how long will it take and how much cash? The Co has to pay for the lawyers for years as this kind of crap winds it's way through the courts. It is ends up costing millions of dollars to win, the Co lost. Since someone else will then just start yet another case against them. I would VERY much love to see the auto makers sued every time someone steals a car and kills. Then people would get on law makers to slap this garbage down for good. Since it's only gun makers they are going after many law makers are encouraging this.
 
Messages
1,880
Reactions
4,104
... I would VERY much love to see the auto makers sued every time someone steals a car and kills. ...
Yep: Advertise your truck can haul heavy loads? You are marketing to thieves looking to steal heavy things. Advertise your car goes fast? You are marketing to bank robbers who need to make a quick getaway. Advertise your car gets great mileage? You are marketing to drug runners who need to minimize stops and the opportunities for chance encounters with police. Advertise your car looks nice? You are at fault if its good looks distract and cause an accident. Before you know it, you'd have to tack $10k to every vehicle's cost just to cover litigation expenses.

Or this crap could just be dismissed as it ought to be (and as this suit Remington is involved in ought to be).
 
Messages
608
Reactions
1,733
There is no winning. Remmington might ultimately prevail but that is no "winning". The amount of money it will waste on defending this case is ungodly.
Given the implications of this particularly egregious lawsuit for the 2A, I'd gladly donate, e.g via crowdfunding, to Remington's legal fund.

I know they probably don't need my money, but just to send the message that the 2A community has each other's backs.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,880
Reactions
4,104
Given the implications of this particularly egregious lawsuit for the 2A, I'd gladly donate, e.g via crowdfunding, to Remington's legal fund.

I know they probably don't need my money, but just to send the message that the 2A community has each other's backs.
That's an interesting idea. It would get media attention for certain which would certainly cause the fund to balloon. I'd donate.
 

Goosebrown

Messages
4,595
Reactions
11,677
While true, the decision to not review does two things:

1) It makes the law against suing firearm manufacturers inherently weak to meaningless because cases won't get knocked out pre-trial so long as there is some clever twisted argument, so expect more lawsuits.

2) Lawsuits are insanely expensive. The plaintiffs could lose the case and at the same time, the legal fees spent defending the case could put a manufacturer out of business. For the 2A side, that's losing by winning.
If the company was illegally advertising then it needs to go to trial. Remington will win even if in appeal. However not going to trial makes the law weaker.

This is good in the long run. Remember though they make the R51 and forcthat alone they should face corporate legal death.
 

NW Backpacker

Messages
909
Reactions
1,833
The thing that irks me about this process, is that it shifts the burden of making law to private parties. The government likes to pretend there is some holy process but the truth is, the cost and burden of making a law that will benefit all Americans is falling solely on Remington's shoulders at this point. That kinda sucks.
To cut financial losses, would it make any sense for Remington to pay a rookie, relatively inexpensive lawyer, to represent them, and if they lose immediately appeal until the case ends up at the SCOTUS? In other words, could they just do the bare minimum defense, saving $millions, to get it to the SCOTUS?

Some good comments under that video on Youtube. One comment asked a good question:
"Colion: Does the Chief Justice alone make the decision to not take the case or do they vote on it? I'd like to know who or which Justices are responsible for this"

Replies indicated we don't know which justices voted not to hear the case. Could it be forced out of them using the FOIA?

SCOTUS should have declared the case frivolous, as should every other court. Why? Because IT IS frivolous.
 
Last edited:

LATEST REVIEWS

  • Supporting Vendor Copeland Custom Gunworks
    5.00 star(s)
    I had a second gunsmithing job completed by Mr. Copeland. As with the first, he did amazingly good work, communication was solid, and the rates...
    • CountryGent
  • Supporting Vendor Copeland Custom Gunworks
    5.00 star(s)
    I brought Tim a henry goldenboy youth and a vision of what I wanted. Tim made it come true at a very reasonable price, while others quoted me way...
    • Iceman04503
  • Supporting Vendor Copeland Custom Gunworks
    5.00 star(s)
    Tim, has done several projects including a sweet 1911 .38 super project
    • Qochoc
  • Mary's Pistols
    5.00 star(s)
    Fantastic small business with equally excellent folks running the place. I was given fair value for a trade in and was able to order something I...
    • Red98422
  • Gooseneck Road
    4.00 star(s)
    Very popular service road with some unmarked logging roads that branch off of the main. Relatively cleaned up from what we saw. I just wish that...
    • Benzdriver81

SUPPORT NORTHWEST FIREARMS

Staff online