Platinum Supporter
Bronze Lifetime
- Messages
- 15,651
- Reactions
- 39,146
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There was no ruling, they simply declined to hear the case. If the lawsuit is successful then the manufacturer can still appeal the case.
I would agree that it is significant and could ruin a lot of small businesses that can't fund their defense.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.
... as there is some clever twisted argument, so expect more lawsuits.
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 ?
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
The firearms companies will win. ...
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 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.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
... I would VERY much love to see the auto makers sued every time someone steals a car and kills. ...
Given the implications of this particularly egregious lawsuit for the 2A, I'd gladly donate, e.g via crowdfunding, to Remington's legal fund.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.
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.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.
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.
No, it is not that significant. Not favorable, but the sky is not falling.