Sandy Hook Parents Can Now Sue Remington For The Deaths Of Their Children

Indecisi0n

Well-Known Member
This is just crazy




Parents who lost their children during the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School can now sue the gunmaker of the rifle used in the shooting.

On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court rejected a Hail Mary appeal made by Remington Arms Co., meaning the manufacturer will not be afforded protection from their potential liability in the mass shooting.

A lawsuit to hold Remington liable for the marketing of the AR-15 style Bushmaster rifle was launched in December 2014 by family members of nine of the deceased and one survivor. This decision will allow those behind the lawsuit to move forward with their allegations.

The individuals who filed the lawsuit argued the military-style weapon should never should have been sold to the public, NPR reports.

The lawsuit states Remington violated Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law after they ‘knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings’.

The families also accused the company of using a ‘lone gunman’ narrative to glorify and market the rifle, pointing to an advertisement bearing the following words, ‘Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered’.

The lawsuit alleged gunman Adam Lanza was inspired by the marketing of the weapon when he committed the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut; a mass murder of 20 children and six adults.
After the lawsuit was filed, Remington was backed by various gun rights lobbying organisations, with groups including the politically influential National Rifle Association (NRA).

The Supreme Court have decided not to take up an appeal put forward by Remington, with the company appealing for protection under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

This divisive law, which came into effect in 2005, shields gun manufacturers from accountability for crimes committed using their products. However, with the scale of mass shootings in the US, the act has been heavily scrutinised in recent years.

The decision to reject Remington’s appeal marks a significant blow for the US gun industry, potentially paving the way for other gun violence victims’ families to pursue lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
The Sandy Hook victims’ families are ‘grateful’ for the decision, reports CNN Business, describing Remington’s appeal as the ‘latest attempt to avoid accountability’.

Attorneys said they now want to work ‘to shed light on Remington’s profit-driven strategy’ to ‘court high-risk users at the expense of Americans’ safety’.

Sandy Hook Parents Can Now Sue Remington For The Deaths Of Their Children
 

Indecisi0n

Well-Known Member
So should people who speed in their cars and get into an accident sue the manufacturer? Stock 700HP cars are just irresponsible now. Haha .give me a break . I hate this generation .
 

UpstateNYUPSer

Well-Known Member
While I do not agree with much of the wording in the lawsuit, I do agree that the company has no business selling military style assault rifles to anyone other than the military and police.
 

sailfish

Duke of Doúchebaggery
While I do not agree with much of the wording in the lawsuit, I do agree that the company has no business selling military style assault rifles to anyone other than the military and police.
Christ. Here we go.

To buy a "military style assault rifle" requires extensive paperwork and background checks including submission of fingerprints and approval from your local sheriff or chief of police, along with a $200 tax stamp and a waiting period anywhere up to a year. That's not the product they were marketing.
 

sailfish

Duke of Doúchebaggery
So should people who speed in their cars and get into an accident sue the manufacturer? Stock 700HP cars are just irresponsible now. Haha .give me a break . I hate this generation .
Paul Walker's family tried suing Porsche with this type of mindset. Another crew looking for a cash grab.
 

sailfish

Duke of Doúchebaggery
Christ. Here we go.

To buy a "military style assault rifle" requires extensive paperwork and background checks including submission of fingerprints and approval from your local sheriff or chief of police, along with a $200 tax stamp and a waiting period anywhere up to a year. That's not the product they were marketing.
Oh, and this is if you can find one manufactured before 1986 and are willing to shell out $15k+ for it. Thanks, Reagan. You f* face.
 

upschuck

Well-Known Member
I don't see how any company can be successfully sued over manufacturing a product that is legal, if product works as advertised.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
I don't see how any company can be successfully sued over manufacturing a product that is legal, if product works as advertised.
That is why a law was passed to protect manufacturers. The Court basically punted on the case. Didn't really make a ruling. Just allowed the lawsuit to continue. If Remington loses it will end up right back in the Supremes lap to make a real ruling.
 

542thruNthru

Well-Known Member
Christ. Here we go.

To buy a "military style assault rifle" requires extensive paperwork and background checks including submission of fingerprints and approval from your local sheriff or chief of police, along with a $200 tax stamp and a waiting period anywhere up to a year. That's not the product they were marketing.
But it looks like a military style assault rifle!

Upstate also thinks these are military style firearms.
images.jpeg.jpg
mp1501.jpg


Save us all from the evil looking military weaponry!
 
Last edited:

rod

#1 on Upstates "list"
So should people who speed in their cars and get into an accident sue the manufacturer? Stock 700HP cars are just irresponsible now. Haha .give me a break . I hate this generation .
Now you know why us old geezers are always pissed off.
 
Top