Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. No industry has been more pampered than the gun industry. They have refused time and time again to face the issue of gun violence. The Industry through the NRA have stymied efforts to market smart guns or to pass sensible gun control legislation.
Changes in an industry usually come in the US only after lawsuits have been filed and an industry financially hurt. You need to look at the automotive, tobacco, chemical, pharmaceutical, and other industries as well for example. Each one made changes after law suits were filed.
If you are going to market guns in a certain way be prepared to face the consequences.
The Supreme Court decision may or may not mean anything in the long run, but at least it gives some of the families some hope of restitution from these negligent manufacturers.
How were they negligent? If you can't prove that, there is no case. Restitution? Like a gift card to Cabela's?
The suit claims that the "sicko" chose the gun to use based on the way that Remington marketed their product. His mother had an arsenal apparently, and he picked the Bushmaster because Remington said it was designed to take down a lot of people.
What is an "arsenal"? Is that a bunch of "assault weapons"?
Remington "said" it was designed to take down a lot of people?
The suit claims that the "sicko" chose the gun to use based on the way that Remington marketed their product. His mother had an arsenal apparently, and he picked the Bushmaster because Remington said it was designed to take down a lot of people.
Wait till the families of gang bangers start lawsuits, too.
I'm waiting for buyers of Fords or Toyotas to sue those manufacturers.
Suppose Ford or Toyota ran an ad saying "You have to be careful with cars. They can have accidents and people can be injured or killed. You must drive safely." And then someone uses a Ford or Toyota to run down his philandering wife or his workplace rival who got promoted over him. Some lawyer can allege that the guy bought a Ford or Toyota in part because he heard that commercial say that the car can kill people... and that's just what the guy wanted, he bought the car in part to kill people.
Here comes a BUNCH of lawsuits against car manufacturers, ladder manufacturers, and everything else under the sun that can hurt or kill people. Which is nearly everything.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation and/or incorrect assumptions in this thread.
The Supreme Court simply declined to hear the case. As previous posters have noted, this means nothing. The number of cases that proponents ask the Supreme Court to hear is extremely high. The Court hears only a fraction of the cases proponents ask it to hear. It has to be selective or it would not take the cases that are most critical for it to hear.
As I understsand it, this case has not yet come before any fact finder, whether it be a jury or a judge. The trial court made a decision based on whether the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevents Remington from even facign a suit in this case. That decision was reviewed by the Connecticut Supreme Court which determined Remington was not shielded as a matter of law by that statute. Remington asked the Supreme Court to review that decision and the Supreme Court did not select it for review.
So what does this mean? Without reviewing the full record, it presumably goes back to the trial court for an actual trial on the merits. Remington will likely win but it was hoping to save the expense of a trial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.