WaPo: The Supreme Court’s Sandy Hook ruling is a welcome victory for gun violence victims

"GUN MAKERS and sellers have never really had to account for the deadly consequences of their products because of an unusual federal law enacted in 2005 that gives them immunity from most lawsuits. So the Supreme Court’s decision not to block a lawsuit brought in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is a significant — and welcome — development. It may give the families of the victims their day in court while providing a road map for victims of other mass shootings who seek answers and some measure of justice....

"The case against Remington Arms, brought by relatives of nine victims who died and a survivor of the shooting, focused on how the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the attack was marketed with militaristic and hypermasculine advertising and used product placement in videos to appeal to younger, at-risk males. The suit alleges it was no accident that the troubled 20-year-old Sandy Hook gunman chose this particular weapon — promoted under slogans like 'Consider your man card reissued' — to carry out a murderous rampage that took less than five minutes."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...20e612-058a-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

What do you think? Should the gun industry be held responsible for recklessly marketing its products?

 

Since no one has been able to present so much as even a single piece of marketing material by the firearm manufacturer that encourages the illegal use of their product, or boasting that it is suitable for being used in a mass shooting, the burden of proof the plaintiffs would have to meet will be essentially insurmountable. If the Remington manufacturing company chooses to file a counter suit against the plaintiffs to maintain a say over the venue of choice for the lawsuit, it will be able to force the plaintiffs to try and prove whatever claims they make. The matter will quickly be shifted to the credibility of the plaintiffs and their unsubstantiated claims, as the Remington manufacturing company can maintain they have never condoned the illegal use of their product, or encouraged anyone to go out and commit murder.

The plaintiffs in this case will find themselves in a situation that is impossible to win. The Remington manufacturing company will have evidence that it only sells its products in a legal manner, in full compliance with state and federal requirements. It will be able to prove the firearm in question was not sold to Adam Lanza, and therefore their advertisements could not have possibly encouraged him to do anything since he had to steal a firearm to engage in mass murder.

The plaintiffs in this case have no chance of persevering in a court of law with the burden of proof they will be up against. They will ultimately lose the case, and they will be legally required to cover the court costs incurred by the defendants. If they were smart, they would simply cut their losses and accept that fault cannot be assigned to anyone except the deceased, rather than maintaining pettily that someone must be forced to pay so that they can feel better.

 

Well, I would be surprised if the plaintiffs could win; such a win would open the opportunity for a huge number of lawsuits of other manufacturers of products misused for criminal purposes.
However, I suspect, the objective isn’t necessarily to win the suit as it is to bolster support for increased gun control legislation, particularly associated with ‘Assault Rifles’ and semi-autos using the Court’s ruling allowing the suit as some level of credibility of the claims against those classes of weapons by GCAs of their inherent dangers to public safety. Wait and watch for the spin narratives.

 

Since the USSC hasn't ruled your title of the thread is false and click bait.

 

It's absolutely stupid.

But I guess we can start suing Ford and Chevy for DUI deaths, so that's somethin'...

 

The plaintiffs should have to pay every single penny the defendants pay in legal fees. That will bankrupt the scumbags and make a most useful example of them to others who would try this same nonsense.

 

It's not a victory for anyone

 

No. 99.9999% of their products never hurt anyone.

What do you think will be the result here? You think gun manufacturers are gonna stop supplying us with weapons?

Here's what'll happen if such lawsuits meaningfully impact their bottom line: they will stop selling firearms and instead sell machined parts that can be assembled into firearms. A very small percentage of gun owners may stop buying guns, but most will just learn how to finish the parts into a working gun themselves.

The consequences of this will be that such guns will be much harder to track, potentially less safe to use, and millions more americans will become more adept at DIY gunsmithing.

Congratulations, I guess...

 

Probably none of you understand much about tort law. A business can sued and required to pay damages if it does not proactively try to prevent harm resulting from its products. The gun industry has a history of burying its head in the sand while raking in the profits from illegal gun sales (see no evil, hear no evil) . Back in 2005 the gun lobby got its buddies in Congress to pass a law which granted special protection to the gun industry against lawsuits which other industries do not enjoy.

 

And having made that statement I doubt you understand much about firearm regulations.

 

Such does not apply with regard to the everyday use of firearms, however. Nor does such apply when the resulting harm is caused by the illegal misuse of their legal product.

The legal sale of firearms is already governed by extensive firearm-related restrictions at the state and federal level. Firearm manufacturers can only sell firearms to individuals who are licensed to engage in the sale of firearms. Federally licensed firearm dealers can only sell firearms to individuals who do not have a criminal record. Such is the legal setup in the united states pertaining to firearms. There is quite literally no avenue for firearm manufacturers to profit from the illegal trade of firearms.

No other industry in the united states, absolutely none whatsoever, is subjected to lawsuits relating to their products being utilized in an illegal manner. Therefore the firearms industry is in need of such protection, as they are the only industry actively being targeted in such a manner.

 

Actually if the anti's had a clue they would realize their Poster Boy, presidential contender Bernie Sanders voted for passing The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

Even he understood suing firearms manufacturers for the illegal actions of firearm owners was not proper, and a danger to any manufacturer, of any legal product, that was misused outside of the manufacturers control.

 

"What is true, Ricker says, is that gun manufacturers have long known that distributors and retailers supply thousands of guns each year to criminals, and yet gun makers deliberately look the other way....

"To help stem the flow of guns to criminals, Ricker proposed strict standards and guidelines for the industry where none existed before. Under his plan, manufacturers could sell guns only to distributors and retailers who passed exams on firearms laws, gun safety and recognizing warning signs of gun trafficking. Also, gun dealers would be prohibited from selling several guns at a time to the same person. Ricker says his plan was rejected....

"Ricker says the ATF repeatedly offered to give gun makers the names of their dealers who were selling an unusually large number of guns used in crimes. But Ricker says the industry wasn't interested."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/firing-back/

The gun industry could be doing a lot more to weed out bad apple gun dealers. But they'd rather just bury their heads in the sand and say, "It's not my problem."

 

He is an idiot, as he totally fails what a FFL must go through.

And it's not the gun industry's job, nor do they have the judicial power to weed out "bad apple" gun dealers, that is the job of the BATF.

 

If the federally licensed firearm dealers have a valid license to be engaged in the business of selling firearms, then the firearm manufacturers have no reason to refrain from selling firearms to them, for the purpose of turning around and selling said firearms to the general public.

If there are indeed federally licensed firearm dealers who are violating established state and federal-level firearm-related restrictions in the name of profit, then the ATF is authorized to terminate their business license and shut them down at once. If the ATF is not doing this, they are either grossly incompetent and derelict in their duties, or the supposed infractions are not actually infractions and thus cannot be punished.

The responsibility falls squarely on the part of the ATF. If they have no interest in fulfilling that responsibility, then they should turn over their firearm regularity authority to some other agency that will fulfill its responsibilities.

 

Could you give two or three well known examples of what you are referring to? I would appreciate it since I don't "understand much about tort law".

 

So now they have to put a warning sticker on the gun.

 

Good question. What could they have done or not done to avoid what happened?

 

Considering the fact when compared to other forms of marketing, say automobiles where they have professional drivers breaking all types of driving rules, the gun industry ads are very mild.

 

So no?

 

lets examine your silly argument. Other than stop making guns, what could Remington do that would prevent a lawsuit like this