Remington Arms allowed to be sued by Sandy Hook victims

[Poke78]

It's probably the weed, bro

If it was the weed, he should be suing Frito-Lay for the "Cheetos" and Nabisco for the "Oreos"...

 

[rlongnt]

I'm guessing this lawsuit is not successful.

The truly faulty product Remington has produced lately is the machining just behind the chamber on 870 shotguns. The machining is so rough the single extractor causes the rim of the shell to dig into the left side and locks into the rough machining marks locking up the action until you apply stupid crazy force to get it out.

Lately their finishing looks like it was done with cinder blocks too. Sad..

 

[rawhide]

The CT decision was 4-3 & even went beyond the scope of the case before them stating that the 2nd Amendment does not protect AR15s. Smells strongly of activist judges and hopefully doesn't stand a chance on federal appeal. Either way, there's got to be a lot of happy lawyers.

 

[Tanis143]

You guys are missing the point. Doesn't matter if the lawsuit is successful or not, its costing Remington money every day in lawyer fees. Not to mention the court of public opinion. Most people think of Remington as classic rifles and shotguns, not modern sporting rifles. So this is also costing their reputation. Even IF this case gets tossed at the federal level, look for these people to file lawsuits against every manufacturer that had anything to do with any of these mass shootings. Death by a thousand paper cuts doesn't happen fast, it happens over a slow, methodical process.

 

[Glocktogo]

Gotta admit, the ad above, about the man card, strikes me as pretty juvenile and stupid. Not really helping things any.

Oh I agree, but I'm interested in seeing what evidence the plaintiffs have that this somehow influenced Nancy Lanza's purchasing decision and why it would matter even if it did.

 

[Dale00]

I assume this ruling was issued by a judge who is appointed for life and who feels very secure in his or her position. I do not understand the legal system but it seems that judges have been inbued with entirely too much power. If a ruling directly contradicts higher federal law, shouldn't there be consequences...a rebuke of some sort or perhaps even loss of position on the bench??

 

[chuter]

Oh I agree, but I'm interested in seeing what evidence the plaintiffs have that this somehow influenced Nancy Lanza's purchasing decision and why it would matter even if it did.

Agreed.

 

[Shadowrider]

Oh I agree, but I'm interested in seeing what evidence the plaintiffs have that this somehow influenced Nancy Lanza's purchasing decision and why it would matter even if it did.

I have no doubt that they will try to spin it however they have to, regardless of how ridiculous it may be.

 

[TerryMiller]

I assume this ruling was issued by a judge who is appointed for life and who feels very secure in his or her position. I do not understand the legal system but it seems that judges have been inbued with entirely too much power. If a ruling directly contradicts higher federal law, shouldn't there be consequences...a rebuke of some sort or perhaps even loss of position on the bench??

Wikipedia information indicates they are not lifetime appointments. They even have a chart indicating when each justice's term ends.

Wikipedia - Connecticut Supreme Court

 

[dennishoddy]

Oh I agree, but I'm interested in seeing what evidence the plaintiffs have that this somehow influenced Nancy Lanza's purchasing decision and why it would matter even if it did.

I'm totally confused how they are going to make that stick when auto manufacturers advertise high performance cars designed for young folks, some of which have gone on to drive those vehicles under the influence of drugs or alcohol which results in a fatality accident, or they intentionally drive the vehicle into a person or crown to cause intentional injury and death.
They never sue the car manufacturer for the most part unless it was caused by a defect.
Almost everybody owns a car, so they are exempt?