Sandy Hook case to go to CT supreme court

noway2

noway2

Senior Member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
21,490
Location
Onboard the mothership
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...nnecticut-supreme-court/ar-BBEWJX4?li=BBnbcA1

This will be an interesting one to watch. One of the Dim's laundry wish list items is to be able to hold firearm manufacturers liable for crimes committed with guns they've manufactured. It galls them no end that the firearm companies are legislatively protected against such action, and it is also ridiculous that such explicit protections should be required.

The lower courts agreed that the company can't be held liable, however the state supreme court has agreed to hear the challenge. In short the plaintiffs bringing suit are claiming that the company is liable because they marketed the product in such a manner as to "extoll the militaristic and assaultive qualities" - again a throwback to their "assault weapon" mania over cosmetic characteristics.

From the article:
The families' argument is based on the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment, in which a product is carelessly sold or given to a person at high risk of using it in a harmful way. Negligent entrustment is specifically excepted from the 2005 gun maker shield laws.
Click to expand...
and
David Studdert, a Stanford law professor, said he thought it was a tough argument for the families to make because negligent entrustment has traditionally involved someone having direct knowledge that another person poses a risk.
Click to expand...

The legal argument seems like it would fall apart on an intuitive basis: that Remington did not directly and knowing sell to a party that committed the heinous act. It seems like a real stretch to try to claim they are liable based upon their marketing, but if successful it would certainly be a point score for the side that gets irrational over a gun being black and scary looking to liberals.
 
It won't go anywhere. Courts have been loathe to rule for plaintiffs in these cases (alcohol, gun manufacturers, car manufacturers). If for some reason the Connecticut SC rules in favor of the plaintiffs, be sure it will die a swift death at SCOTUS.

Now if the plaintiffs want to sue the gun shop that sold the gun, they may have a case.
 
Chuckman said:
Now if the plaintiffs want to sue the gun shop that sold the gun, they may have a case.
Click to expand...

How so? If General Motors is protected in a DUI case, would not the selling dealer be also?

The kid had to kill his own mother to gain access to start the whole thing
 
We're forgetting big pharma that sold the kid drugs. The SSRI class of drugs has very bad side effects like homicidal and suicidal paranoia. But hey, that's only in less than 1% of users, and that number in over 1 million plus is significant. Might want to have a gander at what's in your medicine cabinet. Just sayin..........
 
Mike Overlay said:
How so? If General Motors is protected in a DUI case, would not the selling dealer be also?

The kid had to kill his own mother to gain access to start the whole thing
Click to expand...
In order to be held liable, they would have to be demonstrated as knowingly selling to someone who intended to commit wrongful actions with the item being purchased.

The same sort of thing would apply to The Home Depot that rented the truck used to mow down the pedestrians.
 
This what I dont understand. The firearm was sold to the mother. She kept them locked up. The kid killed mom to gain access.

How is the manufacturer and or dealer expected to hold any liability?

What angle are the lawyers playing that I am missing?
 
Chuckman said:
@noway2 said it: they would have to knowingly sell to someone they knew intended to commit a wrongful action.
Click to expand...

Considering, in the Sandy Hook case, the guns were not sold to the individual that used them but to the parent, who he killed and stole the guns from (if memory serves me correctly) I don't see how they have any case against the manufacturer or the gun store.

I would thing about the only person that could be civilly liable is the mother for improper storage and she's dead.
 
Mike Overlay said:
This what I dont understand. The firearm was sold to the mother. She kept them locked up. The kid killed mom to gain access.

How is the manufacturer and or dealer expected to hold any liability?

What angle are the lawyers playing that I am missing?
Click to expand...
Lawyers playing the angle that the "assault" rifle shouldn't even be manufactured by Remington (and others) since it is a military rifle and should not be available to the populous. Leftists goal has always been to make manufacture, possession of semi auto rifle illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
TripleO7 said:
You guys are forgetting that "Big Tobacco" paid large.

Didn't matter that everyone knows that tobacco use can eventually kill you.
Click to expand...
Where big tobacco went wrong is in chemically manipulating the formulas with the express intention of making the product more addictive. I recall the killer testimony being of employees showing up and dumping mysterious and secret chemical compounds into the vats.

On the other hand, one could argue that is similar to making the AR physically appeal to a certain crowd, but then the same thing can be said about cars, clothes, and just about anything else.
 
noway2 said:
Where big tobacco went wrong is in chemically manipulating the formulas with the express intention of making the product more addictive. I recall the killer testimony being of employees showing up and dumping mysterious and secret chemical compounds into the vats.

On the other hand, one could argue that is similar to making the AR physically appeal to a certain crowd, but then the same thing can be said about cars, clothes, and just about anything else.
Click to expand...

But whereas tobacco is found/known to be addictive; firearms (or those other products) are not.

If the lawyers argue that Remington, et al., should not even make/market black rifles because of how they look or that they appeal to a certain population, they will lose.
 
Chdamn said:
Considering, in the Sandy Hook case, the guns were not sold to the individual that used them but to the parent, who he killed and stole the guns from (if memory serves me correctly) I don't see how they have any case against the manufacturer or the gun store.

I would thing about the only person that could be civilly liable is the mother for improper storage and she's dead.
Click to expand...

Which are all reasons I think this case is dead in the water.
 
One thing is never mentioned in these cases. The rifle was not purchased in a two party transaction, saler and buyer. It was sold in a 3 party transaction. The sale was approved by the FBI. Should they not be under more liability than the manufacturer/saler? The sale cannot be completed without the approval.
 
Families of the Aurora shooting victims sued, among others, Lucky Gunner for online ammo sales to James Holmes. The judge tossed the case, and it was obvious the Brady campaign was using the families for their own ends. So when they lost, and were ordered to pay back Lucky Gunner $100+K, they were aghast like LG was punishing them....when they knew the risks of possibly losing.
 
Mike Overlay said:
This what I dont understand. The firearm was sold to the mother. She kept them locked up. The kid killed mom to gain access.

How is the manufacturer and or dealer expected to hold any liability?

What angle are the lawyers playing that I am missing?
Click to expand...

The manufacturer has the big money and more likely to settle out of court for something. IMO, that's the angle. But the manufacturers, most likely depending on the manufacturer sales chain, knowingly and willingly sold the gun to a distributor. Who knowingly and willingly sold the gun to an FFL holder. Who then sold the gun to the mother. So they are potentially 2 sales removed from the final recipient of the gun.

Darts at a dartboard. Anything that sticks is a win.
 
Mightyox04 said:
Money is the motive behind this.
Click to expand...
Money is what gets the families to sign on. The underlying motive is the gun control crowd desperately trying to find a judge who will rule that guns are inherently dangerous products. That type of crazy ruling would open the floodgates for lawsuits claiming that manufacturers and dealers were knowingly selling dangerous products.
 
The families' argument is based on the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment, in which a product is carelessly sold or given to a person at high risk of using it in a harmful way
Click to expand...

The non-starter should be the lack of "high risk". The mfg has no idea about the individual so they can only make general assumptions, and in general guns are not an issue. 300M+ guns and they're not even close to a leading cause of death, baring suicide.

The families may win in CT but it'll have to go to the US SCOTUS where I don't see how the family could possibly win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
The lawsuit has no merit, period. Can I shakedown Stanley Works because I nailed into my hand with a Bostitch nailer?
 
Last edited:
Who's paying the lawyers each time this case comes up? We're paying for half the lawsuit, but who's funding the other half?

I can see why lawyers take the case, it's easy money win or lose.... but it can't be the families pitching in hoping for a big payout in the end, is it?
 
Jayne said:
Who's paying the lawyers each time this case comes up? We're paying for half the lawsuit, but who's funding the other half?

I can see why lawyers take the case, it's easy money win or lose.... but it can't be the families pitching in hoping for a big payout in the end, is it?
Click to expand...
"Don't worry, we'll get you something."
Settlement lawyers know they can't win but they have nothing to loose, the defendant has deeper pockets.
 
Last edited:
12151791 said:
Lawyers playing the angle that the "assault" rifle shouldn't even be manufactured by Remington (and others) since it is a military rifle and should not be available to the populous. Leftists goal has always been to make manufacture, possession of semi auto rifle illegal.
Click to expand...
First it was a civilian weapon and then adopted by the military if my history lessons where true.
 
Last edited:
11B CIB said:
Families of the Aurora shooting victims sued, among others, Lucky Gunner for online ammo sales to James Holmes. The judge tossed the case, and it was obvious the Brady campaign was using the families for their own ends. So when they lost, and were ordered to pay back Lucky Gunner $100+K, they were aghast like LG was punishing them....when they knew the risks of possibly losing.
Click to expand...
OT, apologies, but LG had 100k in lawyer fees during that case?
How does one afford such, I mean, seems like there would be VERY few gun shops who would have that much money in their account
 
How about Hollywood and all the actors that have glorified violence over the years, it’s their fault too; and video game creators. Every theatre that has ever shown a violent movie, ever studio, writer, producer...etc.


:p
 
Short Fuse said:
First it was a civilian weapon and then adopted by the military if my history lessons where true.
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct but that is not how the anti liberty lawyers and anti gun sheep view (and will argue in court) the modern sporting rifle. And, if I may take a leap here, the mental gymnastics that the CT judges will rule on will not involve the original concept of the AR15
 
HMP said:
OT, apologies, but LG had 100k in lawyer fees during that case?
How does one afford such, I mean, seems like there would be VERY few gun shops who would have that much money in their account
Click to expand...

Several possibilities,...... LG may have an umbrella policy that covers such, or, their legal counsel took the case without payment up front knowing it would be thrown out. In the case of the latter, LG's lawyers may have known that the plaintiff would lose due to the PLCAA (protection of lawful commerce in arms act). This act preempts lawsuits against firearms manufacturers whose products are used in the commission of a crime.

ln the grand scheme of things, I'm betting there were some deep pockets telling the plaintiff to go ahead and sue knowing they would lose, but telling them up front they would reimburse them if they got slapped with paying the defendant's legal costs.
 
I'm not sure everyone fully appreciates the way in which the war on our Rights and Liberties is being waged.

They're fighting on multiple fronts - some the same as we (the courts and legislatures) but are concentrating the majority of their efforts in the emotional court of public opinion, where we typically ignore them and let them be with their hysteria and factless diatribes.

It is my opinion that we do so at our own peril.

I think the gun control side is counting on losing this one - both at the CT Supreme Court or in the United States Supreme Court. They're depending on it.

For we have the law on our side - as eventually I think even New York, Illinois and California will feel once the right cases see the SCOTUS (not acknowledging that 9 black robed humans have any just or moral claim to determine our Rights).

In general, the legislatures are on our side - as the rapid spread of first concealed carry permit and now constitutional carry attest.

These are all battles we typically win, and battles we could win all of and still lose.

Following the Vietnam War, an American military officer remarked to his Vietnamese counterpart "You know, you never once really beat us on the battlefield."

The Vietnamese officer, considering the words, offered a simple rebuttal:. "That very well may be, but I do not see how that is relevant."

Disarmament will come voluntarily- by a future generation that has been emotionally and psychologically conditioned to fear guns.

It's zero tolerance in schools (PopTarts anyone?).

It's progressive assignments that are biased towards specific points of view.

It's grading on conformity to those views.

It's uncomfortable questions and lectures in doctors' offices.

It's progressive work policies that places weapons in the same category as pornography.

The war can only be won by Posterity - ours, our children's, their children's - and the dedication of millions yet unborn that decide to Live Free. And it must be won by every generation - because the war between power and Liberty is neverending.

It is my opinion that they want to lose this case (the special interests, not the families) to further diminish trust in the system to deliver social justice.

For if you adequately undermine the system, no amount of legal argument will matter, nor legislation save - that which the People have abandoned.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
I'm not sure everyone fully appreciates the way in which the war on our Rights and Liberties is being waged.

They're fighting on multiple fronts - some the same as we (the courts and legislatures) but are concentrating the majority of their efforts in the emotional court of public opinion, where we typically ignore them and let them be with their hysteria and factless diatribes.

It is my opinion that we do so at our own peril.

I think the gun control side is counting on losing this one - both at the CT Supreme Court or in the United States Supreme Court. They're depending on it.

For we have the law on our side - as eventually I think even New York, Illinois and California will feel once the right cases see the SCOTUS (not acknowledging that 9 black robed humans have any just or moral claim to determine our Rights).

In general, the legislatures are on our side - as the rapid spread of first concealed carry permit and now constitutional carry attest.

These are all battles we typically win, and battles we could win all of and still lose.

Following the Vietnam War, an American military officer remarked to his Vietnamese counterpart "You know, you never once really beat us on the battlefield."

The Vietnamese officer, considering the words, offered a simple rebuttal:. "That very well may be, but I do not see how that is relevant."

Disarmament will come voluntarily- by a future generation that has been emotionally and psychologically conditioned to fear guns.

It's zero tolerance in schools (PopTarts anyone?).

It's progressive assignments that are biased towards specific points of view.

It's grading on conformity to this views.

It's uncomfortable questions and lectures in doctors' offices.

It's progressive work policies that places weapons in the same category as pornography.

The war can only be won by Posterity - ours, our children's, their children's - and the dedication of millions yet unborn that decide to Live Free.

It is my opinion that they want to lose this case (the special interests, not the families) to further diminish trust that n the system to deliver social justice.

For if you adequately undermine the system, no amount of legal argument will matter, nor legislation save - that which the People have abandoned.
Click to expand...
Holder alluded to this when he said we have to brainwash people to think about guns differently. That goes for all our freedoms and values.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
HMP said:
OT, apologies, but LG had 100k in lawyer fees during that case?
Click to expand...
LG had over 200K in legal fees, which the judge made the plaintiff pay. The plaintiff was a mother and father of one of the movie shooter's victims.
This mom & dad, awash in grief, were strong-armed into filing this suit by the Brady campaign. The BC knew it was unwinnable, but took advantage of these suffering parents to selfishly attempt to advance their cause for personal profit and gain.
The mom & dad are now absolutely broke and filed bankruptcy. The BC, which pulls in 40-50 million dollars a year from the usual nefarious vampires ala Bloomberg and Soros, when asked if they would cover the expenses the family incurred...silence. This family is the very definition of useful idiots. Not only did they lose their daughter in a horrific event, they were used as pawns by the epitome of left wing arrogance and have lost everything else also.
 
Friday said:
LG had over 200K in legal fees, which the judge made the plaintiff pay. The plaintiff was a mother and father of one of the movie shooter's victims.
This mom & dad, awash in grief, were strong-armed into filing this suit by the Brady campaign. The BC knew it was unwinnable, but took advantage of these suffering parents to selfishly attempt to advance their cause for personal profit and gain.
The mom & dad are now absolutely broke and filed bankruptcy. The BC, which pulls in 40-50 million dollars a year from the usual nefarious vampires ala Bloomberg and Soros, when asked if they would cover the expenses the family incurred...silence. This family is the very definition of useful idiots. Not only did they lose their daughter in a horrific event, they were used as pawns by the epitome of left wing arrogance and have lost everything else also.
Click to expand...
Their story should be shared everywhere so BC, et. al. don't take advantage of anyone else.
 
Railsplitter said:
Several possibilities,...... LG may have an umbrella policy that covers such, or, their legal counsel took the case without payment up front knowing it would be thrown out. In the case of the latter, LG's lawyers may have known that the plaintiff would lose due to the PLCAA (protection of lawful commerce in arms act). This act preempts lawsuits against firearms manufacturers whose products are used in the commission of a crime.

ln the grand scheme of things, I'm betting there were some deep pockets telling the plaintiff to go ahead and sue knowing they would lose, but telling them up front they would reimburse them if they got slapped with paying the defendant's legal costs.
Click to expand...
thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom