Supreme Court allows Lawsuit against Remington by Sandy Hook families to proceed

HISSMAN

The Great Bearded One
Super Moderator
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
25,633
Location
WV
It will be fine. Remington will fight it and win. Then the precedent will be set for future rulings on the matter.
 

jrandy

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
1,951
Location
Bay Area
I'll preface this with the fact that I'm pro 2A. However, does anyone know if this is actually true?

The firearms maker violated Connecticut law by marketing the AR-15-style rifle “for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”
 

Blk04L

. . .
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
11,315
Location
South Florida
All it means its it will be going to court.

Could be bad, could not be bad.

Don't know how they can prove Remington violated Connecticut law by marketing the AR-15-style rifle “for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.

 

HISSMAN

The Great Bearded One
Super Moderator
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
25,633
Location
WV
I'll preface this with the fact that I'm pro 2A. However, does anyone know if this is actually true?

The firearms maker violated Connecticut law by marketing the AR-15-style rifle “for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”

if that is true, then that is bad. I can't see that being the case. I can't see legal allowing them to put that on a product. If they in fact did, then can of worms has been opened. It's also not necessarily a bad thing for 2A, but a really bad thing for Remington and their marketing department.
 

jrandy

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
1,951
Location
Bay Area
if that is true, then that is bad. I can't see that being the case. I can't see legal allowing them to put that on a product. If they in fact did, then can of worms has been opened. It's also not necessarily a bad thing for 2A, but a really bad thing for Remington and their marketing department.

Yea, I also have a really hard time believing that Remington would have even allowed a statement like that.
 

ssj4sadie

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2001
Messages
9,181
Location
San Antonio, TX
That is clearly wording from the lawyers after Remington. No way Remington would state something like that.
 

MarcSpaz

Resident Trouble Maker
Established Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
2,760
Location
Location: Location:
If I recall correctly, this all spun from a single image advertisement, where Remington had depicted several purposes via role play imagery... showing police, military, youth hunters, and target shooters, all on the same advertisement image. I don't know... but I think that's what it is. I have to do some research... but a law suit against the maker its a stretch, at best.
 

bglf83

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
1,719
Location
Texas
I'll preface this with the fact that I'm pro 2A. However, does anyone know if this is actually true?

The firearms maker violated Connecticut law by marketing the AR-15-style rifle “for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”
I doubt it. This would be like Ford making a commercial for the Transit being good for snatching people off the street.
 
Last edited:

Junior00

Hurter Of Delicate Vaginas
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,574
Location
Ga
IIRC, the families also presented the advertisement as the reason Lanza chose that particular weapon to commit the crime. Never mind the fact that he couldn’t get his hands on one legally and therefore took it from his mother, completely negating that assertion. Had she had a mini-14, sks, etc. then it would be moot.

The SC is going to let this play out before they rule. I’m curious who will be responsible for fees when this ruling goes against the plaintiffs as they should have to pay for this ridiculous and never ending money grab.
 

CobraBob

Authorized Vendor
Established Member
Premium Member
Single Barrel Sirs
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
105,349
Location
Cheshire, CT
If I recall correctly, this all spun from a single image advertisement, where Remington had depicted several purposes via role play imagery... showing police, military, youth hunters, and target shooters, all on the same advertisement image. I don't know... but I think that's what it is. I have to do some research... but a law suit against the maker its a stretch, at best.
You could be right, Marc. Guaranteed the lawyers representing the parents are stretching truths to extremes. This will surely be a case we'll be watching.
 

CGLhawk260

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
373
Location
CT
If they win this case it will set a precedent for MFGs to be sued for reckless advertising. The first person that gets killed in a Hellcat or Demon will sue the crap out of Dodge.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top