Supreme Court to Weigh Taking Bellwether Case Against Gun Industry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the constituency of the current court I'd say there's a good chance of victory. If we were to lose such a case though, it would have a chilling effect on the gun industry. No sane court on the planet should hold a manufacturer liable for a properly functioning product that is misused, but we don't live in sane times so much any more.
 
The can of proverbial worms this would open up is scary for more than the gun industry. I can just see the ads from law firms now for lawsuits against auto manufacturers, and even a climate change lawsuit against gas power vehicle manufactures (from vehicles to lawnmowers).
And it would basically cripple the gun industry in this country.
 
I wonder if what passes for "journalists" these days were born that stupid or if they have to practice.

"... test a law shielding the firearms industry from liability?" Firearms are subject to the same product liability standards as cars, high chairs, Big Wheels or anything else.
 
If this were to go through then our world would be essentially the biggest nanny state in existence. Not too far fetched for a widow to sue the maker of the rope a husband used to hang himself with. Supreme Court should take up the case just to reaffirm that manufacturers have protection against idiots misusing their product. Once again it’s a situation where the person is to blame, not the product. Based on the logic of the suit, thousands of folks could file suit against Boeing for the 9-11 attacks because some jackwagon decided to kill people with it. Sad and ludicrous.
 
Aim1,

When is that from? Last I heard the Sandy Hook lawsuit was killed.


From what I know it is not.


"The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with a lower court judge that one element of the case cannot be tried, saying that the federal shield law precluded the families’ argument that Remington had “negligently entrusted” a weapon of war to an untrained civilian population.

But in a 4-to-3 ruling, the Connecticut justices upheld another element of the families’ case, saying the lawsuit could continue to trial under the state consumer protection law. “Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior,” the decision said."
 
Not being a lawyer, if SCOTUS doesn’t take the case, then the grounds are legit and every gun company with some bearded, kill ‘em’ ad and whose guns were used in an outrage will be sued intensively. That means that the true believers of the Orange were incorrect that court appointments will save us.
 
What about the person who decides not to use a firearm and instead drives their car into a crowd?? Will the auto makers be on the hook ?? I can thinks of a lot of other examples! Opening a BIG can of worms !
 
The idea has a lot of pucker factor. But this might be the best court makeup we will get to hear it. If it goes up later it won't likely be better.


If Trump gets re-elected, which I think he will by a landslide, and Ginsberg retires which I also think will happen there could be 1 more conservative justices on the bench.
 
This is whether or not the PLCAA preempts any state court actions. It is a federal law based on Congressional Commerce clause powers and this is an interlocutory appeal (in the middle of) of the CT Supreme Court's action in sending the case back to trial court for trial and discovery. The Ct. state trial court ruled that the suit was dead, the CT Supreme Court reversed and allowed part of the claim to proceed dealing with advertising, and Remington sought U.S. Supreme Court review.

In this type of case, the Supreme Court will face whether or not the case is not ripe for jurisprudence (they generally dislike interlocutory appeals), whether the defendant might suffer irreparable harm from discovery, reputation, etc., and then whether or not the federal statute preempts any possible state action aside from actual product liability or a retailer selling to prohibited persons, etc. so that states cannot allow such suits at all.

This does not indicate that the plaintiffs will win at trial at this stage but merely whether discovery can go forward on the issue at stake. If the federal law preempts such actions, then the case will have to be dismissed and any similar actions in other state or federal courts will also have to be dismissed.
 
This is whether or not the PLCAA preempts any state court actions. It is a federal law based on Congressional Commerce clause powers and this is an interlocutory appeal (in the middle of) of the CT Supreme Court's action in sending the case back to trial court for trial and discovery. The Ct. state trial court ruled that the suit was dead, the CT Supreme Court reversed and allowed part of the claim to proceed dealing with advertising, and Remington sought U.S. Supreme Court review.

In this type of case, the Supreme Court will face whether or not the case is not ripe for jurisprudence (they generally dislike interlocutory appeals), whether the defendant might suffer irreparable harm from discovery, reputation, etc., and then whether or not the federal statute preempts any possible state action aside from actual product liability or a retailer selling to prohibited persons, etc. so that states cannot allow such suits at all.

This does not indicate that the plaintiffs will win at trial at this stage but merely whether discovery can go forward on the issue at stake. If the federal law preempts such actions, then the case will have to be dismissed and any similar actions in other state or federal courts will also have to be dismissed.

So do you think SCOTUS will grant cert on this case and if so is it a strong case to win?

The complications are huge if SCOTUS denies it.
 
So do you think SCOTUS will grant cert on this case and if so is it a strong case to win?

The complications are huge if SCOTUS denies it.

The problem with interlocutory appeals (where no final judgment from lower courts has been issued) is that the court prefers to deal with final judgments. Interlocutory appeals are more commonly accepted by SCOTUS if the Supreme Court has already defined the law or it the case to them is clear cut in that the case should be dismissed because the federal law prevents the state from going forward.

Thus, the court could wait until it goes to trial in Connecticut, a judgment is rendered by the trial court, and then presumably appealed to the CT Supreme Court (or an intermediate appellate court if that exists in CT). That develops a full record and avoids disrupting the process so some some justices might feel why take the case if the Newtown folks lose in trial court.

If the court grants cert, then I would suspect that Remington will win. If it denies cert, Remington can try again if they lose in CT courts or possibly the case could be overturned on other grounds. It is conceivable that the CT law is unconstitutional under First Amendment free speech grounds for example because it attaches civil liability to possibly protected speech of promoting violent or criminal behavior. That law would appear to attach liability to a lot of rap advertising thus it might not be considered narrowly tailored. If Remington wins at the lower court, the Supreme Court would not have to issue a ruling interpreting the PLCAA as the case would be moot.
 
Court denies Remington. Suit goes on. No comment on why from what I've seen.

See Boom's comment above. A litigant is always working against the odds in asking the Supreme Court to take any case, and the odds are even longer (by a lot) when it's an appeal mid-way through the case.

The normal rule is that litigants who are subject to a wrong order have to play out the rest of the case to the end and then appeal. There are a bunch of jurisprudential reasons for this, but it's generally how it goes.
 
So, now Remington actually has to win the case. Good luck with that in Connecticut.

I just heard over the top-of-the-hour news a report stating someone with an interest stating that weapons like the AR-15 should be considered too dangerous to be sold to the public.
I wish I could have pointed out that the Virginia Tech shooting was done by a man using two handguns, and near three dozen people died.
Is THAT sufficiently dangerous?

I wish more people would THINK, .... feeling is nice but it simply is not sufficient.
 
Last edited:
The CT. Supreme Court's decision is that, "The plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims predicated on the theory that
the defendants violated CUTPA by advertising and marketing the rifle in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner were
not time barred."

"The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants unethically promoted their assault weapons for offensive, military style missions by publishing advertisements and distributing product catalogs that (1)promote the AR-15 as ‘‘the uncompromising choice
when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are,’’ (2) depict soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles, (3) feature the slogan ‘‘[w]hen you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers,’’ superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag, (4) tout the ‘‘military proven performance’’ of firearms like the XM15-E2S, (5) promote civilian rifles as ‘‘the ultimate combat weapons system,’’ (6) invoke the unparalleled destructive power of their
AR-15 rifles, (7) claim that the most elite branches of the United States military, including the United States Navy SEALs, the United States Army Green Berets and Army Rangers, and other special forces, have used the AR-15, and (8) depict a close-up of an AR-15 with the
following slogan: ‘‘Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.’’

The CT. Supreme Court, explains the potential advertising liability of Remington under CT law as,

"The gravamen of a wrongful advertising claim, by contrast, is that an advertisement models or encourages illegal or unsafe behavior. In such instances, the immediate victims are just as likely to be third parties who are not customers, whether it be individuals who engage in inappropriate conduct inspired by the advertisements or the direct victims of that conduct. For example, when an especially racy sports car commercial disclaims, ‘‘professional driver, closed course, do not attempt this at home,’’ the perceived risk is not merely—or even
primarily—that viewers will purchase that particular vehicle and drive it unsafely as a result of the commercial. Of at least equal concern is the possibility that noncustomer viewers will emulate the commercial when driving their own vehicles, violating motor vehicle laws, and possibly causing injury to themselves or others, including passengers or pedestrians."

Reading a bit more into the case, Remington appears ill-served by its lawyers in failing to address whether or not the CT law regarding advertising is unconstitutional content discrimination in that it does not appear to be narrowly tailored and not really within the strictures of deceptive trade practices. Thus, arguably, which I cannot find that Remington did so as I do not have access to their briefs, the CUTPA law and the CT decision and CUTPA as applied might violate the 1st Amendment rights of Remington. While commercial speech has traditionally been given lower protection, it has been within the confines of deceptive practices, not hyperbole. If the latter is the case, Captain Morgan rum is in trouble. The current court may have been more sympathetic to claims on this ground than the PLCAA. From my reading, Remington seemed to rely on the PLCAA as a magic shield at the trial court which agreed with it and the CT court pierced with their ruling.

In reading the CT Supreme Court opinion, I noted that the CT. Court relies extensively on FTC regulation of advertising which more or less makes it difficult for CT to claim independent state grounds regarding CUTPA's interpretation. If Remington's lawyers had been on top of their game, this is a major weakness of the CT Court's opinion that should have been addressed.

Thus, my prediction is that the CT Court ruling is more or less designed to allow discovery but that depending on what trial court does, may act against the plaintiffs if no gross idiocies expressing bloodthirsty motives are found in Remington/ad agency correspondence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top