User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 146

Thread: Court rules families of Sandy Hook shooting victims can sue gunmaker Remington

  1. #11
    Points: 10,293, Level: 24
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 557
    Overall activity: 59.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger Second Class10000 Experience Points
    Sergeant Gleed's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1357
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right Now? The Planet Gand
    Posts
    3,075
    Points
    10,293
    Level
    24
    Thanks Given
    329
    Thanked 1,348x in 1,035 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    really? The Conn court has the authority to overrule federal law?
    Freedom Requires Obstinance.

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

  2. #12
    Points: 187,958, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.7%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    263234
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton Washington or Sayulita Mexico depending on the time of year.
    Posts
    82,899
    Points
    187,958
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    9,429
    Thanked 32,202x in 24,095 Posts
    Mentioned
    410 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Gleed View Post
    really? The Conn court has the authority to overrule federal law?
    They don't have the final word on this. I would think this decision will be appealed. This will more than likely end up in the Supreme Court at some point. This would open the door for every state to sue or harass firearms manufacturers out of existence.

    Also, there's no guarantee that the plaintiffs will prevail in their law suit.
    Last edited by Tahuyaman; 03-14-2019 at 02:44 PM.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-14-2019)

  4. #13
    Points: 10,293, Level: 24
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 557
    Overall activity: 59.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger Second Class10000 Experience Points
    Sergeant Gleed's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1357
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right Now? The Planet Gand
    Posts
    3,075
    Points
    10,293
    Level
    24
    Thanks Given
    329
    Thanked 1,348x in 1,035 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The fact that they would be allowed to sue the manufacturer of a legally sold product for the harm caused by the criminal use of a criminally acquired product goes against EVERY tenet of law in civilized countries.

    So, what's next, Ford gets sued because a car thief runs a stolen Explorer through a Times Square crowd in a deliberate act of terrorism?

    Will Boeing be liable when Alaskan Airlines loses a me one's luggage?

    Can someone sue Nancy Pelosi because someone got drunk on wine from her Vinyard and killed a child? Or would that be the car maker's fault, or would that be ruled an involuntary abortion and set aside?
    Freedom Requires Obstinance.

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sergeant Gleed For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-14-2019),Don29palms (03-16-2019),MisterVeritis (03-14-2019),Peter1469 (03-14-2019)

  6. #14
    Points: 17,950, Level: 32
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 600
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    Social25000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Abby08's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    48338
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    8,019
    Points
    17,950
    Level
    32
    Thanks Given
    5,592
    Thanked 5,846x in 3,900 Posts
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why not file the suit against the shooter's family? They're more responsible than the gun manufacturer, they created that POS.

    Oh, excuse me, they're following the smell of money.

  7. #15
    Points: 10,293, Level: 24
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 557
    Overall activity: 59.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger Second Class10000 Experience Points
    Sergeant Gleed's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1357
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Right Now? The Planet Gand
    Posts
    3,075
    Points
    10,293
    Level
    24
    Thanks Given
    329
    Thanked 1,348x in 1,035 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Abby08 View Post
    Why not file the suit against the shooter's family? They're more responsible than the gun manufacturer, they created that POS.

    Oh, excuse me, they're following the smell of money.

    No, it's not that. Sure, the scum-sucking Rodents love to steal money, but their goal is to establish precedent so they can get everyone who's ever been related to a dirtbag that got shot to sue the gun maker and put them out of business.

    The goal is transparent, here, and the Congress passed a FEDERAL LAW prohibiting the practice. Doesn't matter what some Rodent judge in some Podunk state says to the contrary.
    Freedom Requires Obstinance.

    We the People DID NOT vote in a majority Rodent Congress, they stole it via election fraud.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Sergeant Gleed For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (03-16-2019)

  9. #16
    Points: 120,170, Level: 84
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 2,680
    Overall activity: 77.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    860683
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    49,500
    Points
    120,170
    Level
    84
    Thanks Given
    3,133
    Thanked 2,943x in 2,018 Posts
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You are all missing the forest for the trees. This lawsuit is not about the sales of guns, but the method i.e. advertising practices that encourage buyers to think that they are acquiring a military weapon - “the ultimate combat weapons system.”
    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  10. #17
    Points: 36,886, Level: 46
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 64
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    179515
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    16,395
    Points
    36,886
    Level
    46
    Thanks Given
    12
    Thanked 11,200x in 7,070 Posts
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not really relevant. The fact remains that firearms manufacturers are protected from brought because someone used their product illegally.
    Gentlemen and ladies, I hate inflation, I hate taxes, and I hate Communism. Do something about it.” Ronald Reagan's instructions to his first assembled Cabinet.

  11. #18
    Original Ranter
    Points: 503,580, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    421666
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    152,506
    Points
    503,580
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    88,594
    Thanked 72,641x in 49,317 Posts
    Mentioned
    2191 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    You are all missing the forest for the trees. This lawsuit is not about the sales of guns, but the method i.e. advertising practices that encourage buyers to think that they are acquiring a military weapon - “the ultimate combat weapons system.”
    The Sandy Hook shooter did not purchase the gun. Advertisements did not effect him.

    His mother bought a lot of guns- legally. The shooter killed her and stole them. So there is a criminal act standing between a legal sale and the mass shooting. The law suit should fail on that basis.

    However it should not even be entertained. Sellers of legal products should not be liable for the criminal use of their products. (This is different from the tobacco cases, ask if you are interested.) If that legal principle were to go away many major corporations will be litigated out of business.

    All this is is grieving parents seeking deep pockets to ease the mourning process.
    Molon labe
    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  12. #19
    Original Ranter
    Points: 503,580, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    421666
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    152,506
    Points
    503,580
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    88,594
    Thanked 72,641x in 49,317 Posts
    Mentioned
    2191 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Not really relevant. The fact remains that firearms manufacturers are protected from brought because someone used their product illegally.
    That is the problem with this case- it upends that principle.
    Molon labe
    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  13. #20
    Points: 120,170, Level: 84
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 2,680
    Overall activity: 77.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    860683
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    49,500
    Points
    120,170
    Level
    84
    Thanks Given
    3,133
    Thanked 2,943x in 2,018 Posts
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The Sandy Hook shooter did not purchase the gun. Advertisements did not effect him.

    His mother bought a lot of guns- legally. The shooter killed her and stole them. So there is a criminal act standing between a legal sale and the mass shooting. The law suit should fail on that basis.

    However it should not even be entertained. Sellers of legal products should not be liable for the criminal use of their products. (This is different from the tobacco cases, ask if you are interested.) If that legal principle were to go away many major corporations will be litigated out of business.

    All this is is grieving parents seeking deep pockets to ease the mourning process.
    Nevertheless, they are not suing under the legal principle of "negligent entrustment" but instead alleging a violation of CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act):

    ec. 42-110b. Unfair trade practices prohibited. Legislative intent. (a) No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.(b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing subsection (a) of this section, the commissioner and the courts of this state shall be guided by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.(c) The commissioner may, in accordance with chapter 54, establish by regulation acts, practices or methods which shall be deemed to be unfair or deceptive in violation of subsection (a) of this section. Such regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the federal trade commission and the federal courts in interpreting the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act.(d) It is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed.
    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO