Gun manufacturers can now be sued by families victims

[Liquid Cobra]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/newtown-sh ... 019-03-14/

So will this stop at firearms? What about say...a knife manufacturer?

[shunsui]

Same old nonsense in lower courts.

Either you believe in the right to keep and bear arms or you don't.

Doesn't matter if you call them military killing machines, it's still just a rifle.

[murphjd25]

This is absolute BS. They will stop at nothing. Nothing surprises me anymore. It’s time to stand up.

[TomAiello]

The case centers on a claim of wrongful marketing.

I'm really curious what the history of that in the case law is, but I haven't looked into it at all.

It seems like it will rest on things like the old "Joe Camel" lawsuits (claiming that using a cartoon character marketed cigarettes toward children).

Weird stuff. It definitely seems like the court is reaching.

[ChrisinHove]

If you dress like a wealthy celebrity like in the shop ads, can you sue them if you don’t get all the cash, women and fast cars? Result!

[The Deacon]

Bad decision on the part of the court, IMHO, but some perspective is in order. The ruling is by the state supreme court of a single state that happens to be in one of the most liberal states in the country. A Connecticut jury still will have to decide whether Remington's advertising was responsible for Lanza's actions. There's no guarantee even a CT jury will do that, but assuming they do, an appeal by Remington to the US Supreme court would be a certainty, Even if upheld there, it would most likely only affect how firearms are advertised. So, if there was any carry over to knives, it would fall along the same lines. Never having seen the ads in question, I can't comment on their potential for making that specific firearm uniquely appealing to the criminally insane.

[awa54]

Bad decision on the part of the court, IMHO, but some perspective is in order. The ruling is by the state supreme court of a single state that happens to be in one of the most liberal states in the country. A Connecticut jury still will have to decide whether Remington's advertising was responsible for Lanza's actions. There's no guarantee even a CT jury will do that, but assuming they do, an appeal by Remington to the US Supreme court would be a certainty, Even if upheld there, it would most likely only affect how firearms are advertised. So, if there was any carry over to knives, it would fall along the same lines. Never having seen the ads in question, I can't comment on their potential for making that specific firearm uniquely appealing to the criminally insane.

If the plaintiff is successful this will be a boon for dead pigs, car doors and ballistic dummy torsos and CS will have to come up with a whole new marketing strategy

[wrdwrght]

Not all opinions about firearms are therefore a 2A matter.

This one does not infringe on my RKBA (which I exercise at will), nor does it further restrict the making of firearms.

What it would do is alter—by way of the chilling effect of liability—how firearms-makers market their product. This is a matter of the 1A, which the personhood of corporations does not hesitate to invoke, I hasten to add.

Most everyone agrees that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not a good thing, and laws against it have been on the books for decades.

Much advertising in gun rags intends to gin up an existing panic in the streets so as to make the latest firearms the obvious cure for what ails.

Effectively, firearms-makers are yelling “fire” at all the aggrieved victims of bullies, cliques, creeds, or just plain differences, and are hoping to cash-in on their grievances, whether real or imagined. And the NRA aids and abets, because that’s what it’s paid to do.

This ginning-up is cynical and, up to now, irresponsible, but the Supreme Court will probably overturn judicial rulings against it.

And, so, the families victimized in mass shootings will just have to make do with “thoughts and prayers”.

[The Deacon]

Not all opinions about firearms are therefore a 2A matter.

This one does not infringe on my RKBA (which I exercise at will), nor does it further restrict the making of firearms.

What it would do is alter—by way of the chilling effect of liability—how firearms-makers market their product. This is a matter of the 1A, which the personhood of corporations does not hesitate to invoke, I hasten to add.

Most everyone agrees that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not a good thing, and laws against it have been on the books for decades.

Much advertising in gun rags intends to gin up an existing panic in the streets so as to make the latest firearms the obvious cure for what ails.

Effectively, firearms-makers are yelling “fire” at all the aggrieved victims of bullies, cliques, creeds, or just plain differences, and are hoping to cash-in on their grievances, whether real or imagined. And the NRA aids and abets, because that’s what it’s paid to do.

This ginning-up is cynical and, up to now, irresponsible, but the Supreme Court will probably overturn judicial rulings against it.

And, so, the families victimized in mass shootings will just have to make do with “thoughts and prayers”.

All that may be true, but in the Sandy Hook case, it was Lanza's mother who purchased the guns, not Lanza himself, so I'm having a hard time understanding how Remington's advertising could be an issue. But they can't sue Lanza's mother, because she was the first person he killed. Besides, unless she was very rich, it wouldn't be worth the effort. They can't sue the store that sold the Remington, because they did not sell it to Lanza, they sold it to his mother and there's no question on a 4473 asking Do you have any crazy children at home? And, again, unless it came from a huge national chain store, there would be little chance for a big payout.

Heck, I'd faster see the relatives of young people who've been killed or crippled doing "extreme sports" getting a payout from Red Bull.

[wrdwrght]

The facts of the Lanza case, as you say, would seem at odds with the idea that firearms-makers can be held to account for how they have wooed their customers. That’s why I think nothing will come of it.

Still I think the idea is worth exploring legislatively—anathema to libertarians, I know—if only to lessen the testosterone in present-day marketing.

Testosterone played no role in the NRA safety courses we took back in the sixties. Now, everyone needs a man-card and we can’t trust each other.

[Doc Dan]

This was irresponsible on the court's part. The law of unintended consequences (perhaps intended?) would be fully in effect. There are going to be lawsuits over cars that are used in deaths, candy that is involved in death, toys used by perpetrators of crimes, and all sorts of stupid things. Much of it will be because of greed, but much of it will be political. This is crazy.

All of those years of Popeye cartoons did not make kids prone to eating spinach and beating people up, after all.

[JD Spydo]

This is absolute BS. They will stop at nothing. Nothing surprises me anymore. It’s time to stand up.

I couldn't agree more and I'm just livid with this bogus legislation that hurts society as a whole and benefits no one but shark lawyers :mad: There is far more case to be made that automobiles/motor vehicles are far more deadly than any firearm. I could go one further than that if you want to go down "Ludicrous Boulevard" :rolleyes: >> How many people are killed by the careless, missuse of these cellphones>> I bet there area at least 20,000 to 30,000 people a year killed by texting and driving at the same time. Which is far more people killed than with firearms.

It's been about 5 or 6 years ago that one of the leaders of "Gun Owner's of America" which is a very proactive Second Amendment group>> well one of their leaders discovered that there are far more kids that lose their lives by ingesting household cleaning chemicals than there are by kids being killed with firearms.

A gun is nothing more than a tool and an inanimate object>> the gun doesn't have a brain of it's own. This is nothing but complete insanity and it must be stopped before they totally disarm the decent citizens of this great country. Total non-sense, completely baseless and ridiculous :mad:

[shunsui]

A little perspective might help.

Citing the Center for Disease Control, PBS recently stated that in 2018 gun deaths in America increased to 39,773.

Of that total, two thirds (2/3) were suicides, which leaves 13,258 gun deaths.

According to the Washington Post (Nov 21, 2018), in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, a total of 638,169 abortions were reported.

The data is isn’t 100 percent complete — California, Maryland and New Hampshire did not participate, and the reporting is better in some places than others — but it nonetheless provides a window into the overall trends and demographics of who is seeking abortions.

The report did not have information about deaths from complications of abortion in 2015, saying the data was still being assessed. In 2014, six women died as a result of legal induced abortion.

As always, draw your own conclusions.

[Evil D]

If marketing can be blamed then by God I'm suing Spyderco for draining my bank account. It's clearly not my fault I buy knives, their marketing influenced me to make the choice to buy. I'm a victim.

[The Mastiff]

This isn't a new concept. It is designed to increase the cost of guns through higher insurance and legal fees paid by manufacturers. They have done other things along this idea like decreasing the ways the gun dealers can do their banking. All sane people know guns should only be in the hands of the government and those elite enough to benefit from private security firms. :rolleyes:

Joe

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Very good points the pro Second Ammendment people on here make. I also read that one state, New Jersey, and possibly others, want to do something else: They want to make it a law that whenever there is any form of violent crime using guns, the names of the particular gun maker that made that gun that was abused is named in the documents. That would mean that, say, a violent hoodlum uses a pistol made by Smith and Wesson or Colt to hold someone up, then those gun makers will be publically shamed.

It is foolish and stupid. What next? If someone commits a crime using a hammer, the reports will have to say And a hammer made by Stanley Tools" or Craftsman tools" was used?

http://newjersey.news12.com/story/40114 ... ence-stats

https://nj1015.com/murphy-wants-to-sham ... n-control/

https://www.nj.com/politics/2019/03/mur ... treet.html

[SpyderEdgeForever]

This isn't a new concept. It is designed to increase the cost of guns through higher insurance and legal fees paid by manufacturers. They have done other things along this idea like decreasing the ways the gun dealers can do their banking. All sane people know guns should only be in the hands of the government and those elite enough to benefit from private security firms. :rolleyes:

Joe

That is their mentality. You are right. Rarely, though, I have encountered extreme gun banners who say they want everyone, both the elite and the police and the military, and the civilian population, to only have non lethal weapons, which is, ofcourse, anti Constitution and nonsensical. But most are as you said: They want those who share their views to be armed and those who do not to be disarmed.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

If marketing can be blamed then by God I'm suing Spyderco for draining my bank account. It's clearly not my fault I buy knives, their marketing influenced me to make the choice to buy. I'm a victim.

I know this sounds almost funny but I once heard about a person who was suing McDonalds because they claimed the chicken nuggets they ate for years made their breast tissue increase, because they and their lawyer claimed the hormones injected into the chickens to plump up their breasts caused their breasts to grow "too large for her own good", ie, getting in the way of her exercise and daily activities. Allegedly the person found a lawyer to sue McDonalds corporation and I do not know what became of the case. Would a judge throw such a thing out? But it shows you the general principle, you're correct: Irresponsible people wanting to blame others for their abuses or misuses.

In that case, even if it could be established that certain hormones were present in the chicken, noone forced her to eat the McNuggets.

[James Y]

Years ago, some woman sued McDonald's because she ordered hot coffee at the drive-thru, accidentally spilled it on her lap, and said she suffered burns because McDonald's made their coffee too hot. I'm also not sure what became of that case, but it was widely reported when it happened. It was the classic frivolous lawsuit.

So if gun manufacturers can be sued, does that mean that if a knife company or a custom knifemaker makes a knife and someone down the line uses it to serious injure or kill someone, that the knifemaker can then be held liable?

Jim

[soc_monki]

Years ago, some woman sued McDonald's because she ordered hot coffee at the drive-thru, accidentally spilled it on her lap, and said she suffered burns because McDonald's made their coffee too hot. I'm also not sure what became of that case, but it was widely reported when it happened. It was the classic frivolous lawsuit.

So if gun manufacturers can be sued, does that mean that if a knife company or a custom knifemaker makes a knife and someone down the line uses it to serious injure or kill someone, that the knifemaker can then be held liable?

Jim

It actually wasn't that frivolous. The coffee was near boiling, and the lady had 3rd degree burns and nearly died. Here's a link.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.c ... -liebeck

This lawsuit however is IMO. Dude didn't even buy the guns. And I haven't seen any marketing for guns or knives in years! Although I admittedly don't watch TV... I hate commercials!