Supremes allow Sandy Hook families to sue Remington

Long_Hunter

Sufficient Speed, Acceptable Drag
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
3,479
Location
Fayette-Bragg Military Industrial Complex
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Last edited:
My FB is mostly lit up with comparisons to Big Tobacco's "Waterloo" moment. What do you say to those people?
 
smoking is a personal choice. You choose to pick up a cigarette, you don’t choose to be the victim of someone else murdering you. Big tobacco knew their product was dangerous and kept direct marketing to consumers for personal consumption, even paying doctors to publicly say that smoking wasn’t bad for you.

so personally I don’t think the two are interchangeable.
 
My FB is mostly lit up with comparisons to Big Tobacco's "Waterloo" moment. What do you say to those people?

Cigarettes causes cancer when used as designed. Unless you want to make the argument that guns are simply designed to kill children, they have to be misused in order to do that. No one broke the law my missusing cigarettes and got cancer. You have to break the law and miss use the gun to commit a murder. It's not apples and apples.
 
I think they used poor language in getting it this far. For example the Sandy Hook shooter stole this gun from his mother to commit the crime... was the mother a "vulnerable young man" who Remington directed their marketing towards? Maybe I'm just not a good lawyer...
 
Cigarettes causes cancer when used as designed. Unless you want to make the argument that guns are simply designed to kill children, they have to be misused in order to do that. No one broke the law my missusing cigarettes and got cancer. You have to break the law and miss use the gun to commit a murder. It's not apples and apples.
That’s the problem, that is exactly the left’s argument. It’s illogical but that hasn’t stopped them in the past.
 
There's a big difference between allowing the case to proceed and losing the case.

So true...

This is going to get interesting real fast as this goes back to Conn state courts, where it should, as allowed to proceed, enter the discovery phase...the lawyers are really going to give Bushmaster/Remington a deep dive on this...just entering the discovery phase may uncover company and/or industry advertising/marketing secrets that once exposed can never be reburied, let alone exposing former and current executives to sworn statements/testimony...and if one of them decides to flip in support of the plaintiffs...truths, fake truths, half-truths, outright lies, it could all come undone for Remington and firearms industry at large.

The whole case is really wrapped around the advertising of Bushmaster firearms, where phrases such as “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” appeared in Bushmaster advertising and plays right into the Conn unfair trade practices act, which regulates irresponsible advertising...a sympathetic judge or jury is all it will take.

I think Bushys/Remys best defense is the FACT that Nancy Lanza purchased the rifle her son used more than two years before the incident...the boy didn't buy anything...that kids twisted, rotted soul bears responsibility, not the inanimate object.
 
What will see this miscarriage of justice sink Remington is it will now go before a jury of mouthbreathing retards who cannot think reasonably or logically, but can feel all day long.

I've been called for jury duty once in my life (I lasted about 8 minutes in the box, was dismissed by the State because of an experience in the Navy where someone used drugs, lied about it, and had a bunch of us write them character statements based on the lie. The State's key witness is a horrid he said/she said case had drug problems), and had always been a proponent of the better to be judged by 12 than carried by six argument.

The people who were ultimately selected - I would be absolutely nervous with them deciding my fate as a completely innocent man with a mountain of evidence to prove it. We, the People do not value jury trials the way we ought.
 
Last edited:
The valid points brought up above would normally be considered adequate to return the conversation to sanity. The climate today, with the ignorant masses being relentlessly fed a specific agenda will prevent common sense from being heard.

The mass marketing gods are against us!
 
I think they used poor language in getting it this far. For example the Sandy Hook shooter stole this gun from his mother to commit the crime... was the mother a "vulnerable young man" who Remington directed their marketing towards? Maybe I'm just not a good lawyer...

Ummm, forgetting a very tiny detail of murdering the mom in order to gain access to her other firearms
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know if that rifle was an actual Bush Master (pre-freedom group made in Windham, ME)?
If so would, will that make a difference?
 
Last edited:
Makes no difference the weapon used, gun, blade, rope,truck or bare hands, these are tools.
What the individual used the tools for makes the difference.

If they won, all the beer and spirit companies would be liable for DUI DWI deaths and injuries.
 
Next, suing ammo manufacturers.
 
Does anyone know if that rifle was an actual Bush Master (pre-freedom group made in Windham, ME)?
If so would, will that make a difference?

Freedom Group moved on Bushy in 06 and kept manufacturing in Windham, Maine until early 2011...shortly thereafter Windham Weaponry stood up and re-opened the facility...odds are this particular rifle was a Freedom Group Bushy made in Windham, but what the hell do I know...
 
There's a big difference between allowing the case to proceed and losing the case.

The cost of allowing this frivolous litigation to proceed, win or lose, will have a detrimental impact on Remington and possibly the rest of the firearms industry as well.
 
Does anyone know if that rifle was an actual Bush Master (pre-freedom group made in Windham, ME)?
If so would, will that make a difference?
No it wouldn’t matter. When you buy a company, you assume all assets and liabilities. Past products, distribution strategies, marketing campaigns, etc and the rights to them, are all now property of the new company.
It would have been Freedom Groups responsibility to identify a past marketing campaign as a liability and negotiate that into the deal.
 
BTW, this isn't a SCOTUS case, it's a CT state supreme court 4-3 ruling, and the SCOTUS declining to hear a case, which allows it to go thru "due to some loophole in Federal law"
to sue based on Marketing......

Wonder how they're gonna get around the fact that the rifle wasn't sold to a 'young male' as the case alleges, it was sold to a middle aged woman who was murdered and the rifle was stolen (supposedly...)
 
Last edited:
Begs the question what do they know that we don't? Clearly they have something that makes this more OBVIOUS right?
 
This is garbage. I hope that Remington's legal fees wind up being paid by the jackasses who are trying to sue them.
It will be nice but probably Bloomberg and Soros are financing the case against Remington
.
 
... and when they lose this ridiculous suit it'll be a good day for all of us.
 
Just like contesting a will, very little chance of winning, you force the defendant to spend money defending the estate.
Their goal is to bankrupt the industry.
 
It will be nice but probably Bloomberg and Soros are financing the case against Remington
.

This is what I think is happening as well. Some super wealthy liberal is behind the curtains funding this.

If it does follow through, and Remington looses the case, I hope it opens up the doors for people to sue both auto manufacturers and breweries for making the products used in DUI's. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom