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

[fredball]

This is the Begining of the End

Read More

 

[User 1234]

No, it is not that significant. Not favorable, but the sky is not falling.

 

[66PonyCar]

There was no ruling, they simply declined to hear the case. If the lawsuit is successful then the manufacturer can still appeal the case.

 

[awshoot]

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]

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.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

... as there is some clever twisted argument, so expect more lawsuits.

Baltimore Looking to Sue Gun Manufacturers for City’s Escalating Violence

Baltimore wants to sue gun makers for the city's escalaiting violence. They'll be watching a critical lawsuit to see if they have standing to make a case.

www.gunsamerica.com

 

[DangerDog]

SCOTUS? More like "SCROTUS" am I right? >:O

Sorry.......................................................

 

[Member 18201]

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 ?

 

[DangerDog]

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]

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.

 

[awshoot]

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

 

[awshoot]

The firearms companies will win. ...

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.

 

[awshoot]

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.

 

[Alexx1401]

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.

 

[awshoot]

... 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).

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

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.

 

[awshoot]

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]

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]

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.

 

[coyote223]

No, it is not that significant. Not favorable, but the sky is not falling.

That is the whole point though, bankrupt the industry. Do you believe the ambulance chasers in all fifty states aren't looking for similar grounds to sue?