Supreme Court to allow Parents to sue Remington

hoosier

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court is letting a lawsuit proceed against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

The justices rejected an appeal Tuesday from Remington Arms that argued a 2005 federal law shields firearms manufacturers from most lawsuits when their products are used in crimes.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/supreme-court-to-allow-sandy-hook-parents-to-sue-gun-maker-remington?fbclid=IwAR3H4tn1Qy2YQWBFUrDb9zRY5g-mE3x01gdD467og7Jvah9A6furCVqkqYU

Grasshopper

Well, then people can sue Chevy I guess if the auto is used in a death, pizz poor, imo.

ruger41

But but but Trump stacked the SCOTUS with Pro 2A Justices :oops: Liberty is dying before our eyes. I trust NOBODY in Government.

Wyatt Burp

The reasoning is not that manufacturing the firearm itself creates a liability but the plaintiffs are claiming that Remington advertised it as a weapon which enticed the Sandy Hook murderer to choose that one to steal from his mother to commit the crime.

There's little chance Remington will lose but it never should have gone this far.

mogley98

Supreme court showing some stupidity in my opinion. Ford has a fast car so if some dipstick uses it in an accident we sue them? McDonalds makes greasy food we sue for getting fat. Supreme court needs to get sued! LOL

BAD JUJU

mogley98

So a Jeep advertised as off road can be sued if some dipstick off roads and gets hurt or kills someone?

Bad juju

Wyatt Burp wrote:

The reasoning is not that manufacturing the firearm itself creates a liability but the plaintiffs are claiming that Remington advertised it as a weapon which enticed the Sandy Hook murderer to choose that one to steal from his mother to commit the crime.

There's little chance Remington will lose but it never should have gone this far.

mark christian

Wyatt Burp wrote:

The reasoning is not that manufacturing the firearm itself creates a liability but the plaintiffs are claiming that Remington advertised it as a weapon which enticed the Sandy Hook murderer to choose that one to steal from his mother to commit the crime.

There's little chance Remington will lose but it never should have gone this far.

Advertising can come back to bite you in the *.

25 years ago, Navegar, the most recent manufacturers of the TEC-9 series (in all of its variations) was sued when their pistol was used in a California mass shooting in San Francisco. The prosecution presented Navegar product brochures which portrayed TEC-9 an unfavorable light, including it being "Resistant to Fingerprints." Navegar brochures actually advertised the "TEC-KOTE" finish available on the TEC-9 as providing resistance to fingerprint smudges caused by the oils and acids normally found on fingers, which we all know will etch metal. Sadly, people who didn't know any better (the majority) could understand this to mean that fingerprints would not be left on the weapon, there by making it appealing to criminals.

US Military Guy

mark christian wrote:

Wyatt Burp wrote:

The reasoning is not that manufacturing the firearm itself creates a liability but the plaintiffs are claiming that Remington advertised it as a weapon which enticed the Sandy Hook murderer to choose that one to steal from his mother to commit the crime.

There's little chance Remington will lose but it never should have gone this far.

Advertising can come back to bite you in the *.

25 years ago, Navegar, the most recent manufacturers of the TEC-9 series (in all of its variations) was sued when their pistol was used in a California mass shooting in San Francisco. The prosecution presented Navegar product brochures which portrayed TEC-9 an unfavorable light, including it being "Resistant to Fingerprints." Navegar brochures actually advertised the "TEC-KOTE" finish available on the TEC-9 as providing resistance to fingerprint smudges caused by the oils and acids normally found on fingers, which we all know will etch metal. Sadly, people who didn't know any better (the majority) could understand this to mean that fingerprints would not be left on the weapon, there by making it appealing to criminals.

And here we are 20 years later - buying refrigerators that have doors advertised as "resisting fingerprints".

It is not what they said, but about the thing they said it.