The conn. supreme court has overturned a lower courts ruling which will open the door for law suits against Remington Arms. While most of the lower courts ruling was left intact it still allows law suits to be filed. I am assuming the NRA will ask the USSC to hear this ruling. One ruling at a time and the second amendment is being chipped away at. This could potentially cost Remington millions.
Courts; Remington suit
Posted 14 March 2019 - 12:11 PM
Bit of a cryptic post isn't it?
― Edward Abbey
Posted 14 March 2019 - 05:25 PM
I was an cryptologist in the Navy. to decipher, look up Remington law suit on line. Unless you happen to have secret decoder ring.
Posted 14 March 2019 - 07:15 PM
Short version is that the court said Remington could now be sued because of the way they advertised the gun used in the shooting.
Posted 15 March 2019 - 08:40 AM
It may win. manufacturers of AR patterns rifles tried to argue out of one side of their mouth how bad ass these weapons were to the tacticool and mall ninja crowd and then say "Oh, they are just modern sporting rifles no different than grandpa's .30-30" out of the other side.
― Edward Abbey
Posted 15 March 2019 - 11:40 AM
The case is about marketing the weapons, and if the marketing was targeted to teens and school shootings:
Read it if your bored, it's the decision from yesterday, but the last couple of pages with the conclusion gives you the gist:
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that, although most of the plaintiffs’ claims should have been dismissed, PLCAA does not bar the plaintiffs’ wrongful marketing claims and that, at least to the extent that it prohibits the unethical advertising of dangerous products for illegal purposes, CUTPA qualifies as a predicate statute. Specifically, if the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.
Remington/Bushmaster argued that the PLCAA covered them:
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 through 7903 )
CUTPA = Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users