texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
DustyArmadillo, andy202, DBull70, MidwestHunt, Parkman DSO
68558 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 108,344
bill oxner 85,909
stxranchman 57,695
SnakeWrangler 57,222
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,461
Gravytrain 42,988
BMD 41,215
Forum Statistics
Forums46
Topics606,091
Posts11,351,858
Members83,558
Most Online19,184
Feb 5th, 2020
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
SCOTUS turned away Remingtons appeal of Connecticut ruling. #7659522 11/12/19 03:15 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,816
P
pegasaurus Offline OP
THF Celebrity
OP Offline
THF Celebrity
P
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,816
Not good. realmad

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-not-shield-143055548.html

U.S. Supreme Court will not shield gun maker from Sandy Hook lawsuit

Re: SCOTUS turned away Remingtons appeal of Connecticut ruling. [Re: pegasaurus] #7659583 11/12/19 04:01 PM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,811
U
unclebubba Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
U
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,811
The Protection of lawful commerce in arms act is pretty clear to me. Gun manufacturers can not be held liable for criminal use of their products. They can still be held liable for defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct and Negligent Entrustment. It seems the loophole is the negligent entrustment. From what I gather, if they can prove that Remington sold the gun with the knowledge that it may be used to commit a crime, then Remington can be held liable. But, that would be like saying that Ford or Chevy could be held liable for selling a vehicle with the knowledge that it may be used by a drunk driver...or Bic could be held liable for selling a lighter with the knowledge that it may be used by an arsonist...or pick your product and pick your crime...
This is a politically motivated lawsuit in a state that is not friendly to the 2nd ammendment. If they can't repeal the 2nd ammendment, they will try to sue it out of existence. I have a hard time seeing how the SCOTUS will not even hear the argument, but they won't. bang


Originally Posted by SnakeWrangler
Originally Posted by TurkeyHunter
And make Kamila president

She’d just end up blowing it......
Re: SCOTUS turned away Remingtons appeal of Connecticut ruling. [Re: pegasaurus] #7659685 11/12/19 05:37 PM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,503
D
Dry Fire Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
D
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,503
I thought the grounds was due to Remington's advertising. It allegedly targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.


Silence like a cancer grows
Re: SCOTUS turned away Remingtons appeal of Connecticut ruling. [Re: Dry Fire] #7659700 11/12/19 05:51 PM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,811
U
unclebubba Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
U
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,811
Originally Posted by Dry Fire
I thought the grounds was due to Remington's advertising. It allegedly targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.

I could not find an article that clearly stated the suing party's argument. My last statement was taken from what the articles that I read stated. However, with this info,I think my argument still stands. How many Ford Mustangs and Chevy Cameros are and have been marketed to younger, at risk males that might use the product to drive drunk? Should Ford or Chevy be held liable for Drunk Driving deaths?


Originally Posted by SnakeWrangler
Originally Posted by TurkeyHunter
And make Kamila president

She’d just end up blowing it......
Supreme Court Rules #7659716 11/12/19 06:12 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,044
S
Sniper.270 Online Content
Veteran Tracker
Online Content
Veteran Tracker
S
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,044
That the lawsuits against Remington can continue from the Sandy Hook shooting.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-lets-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gunmaker-proceed

Last edited by Sniper.270; 11/12/19 06:20 PM.

Only through suffering, does true enlightenment come.

Psalms 46:10 Be still and know that I am God
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: Sniper.270] #7659725 11/12/19 06:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 10,751
T
TCM3 Online Happy
THF Celebrity
Online Happy
THF Celebrity
T
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 10,751
smirk

Surprising.
So when do the lawsuits against Bud light,Budweiser,etc. Start for causing drunk driving deaths?


[Linked Image] [Linked Image]
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: TCM3] #7659730 11/12/19 06:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 21,194
F
fadetoblack64 Offline
giddyup
Offline
giddyup
F
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 21,194
The supreme court didn't rule. They didn't take up the argument.


What was washed most in 2020/21? Hands or brains?
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: Sniper.270] #7659739 11/12/19 06:35 PM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,753
T
TEXASLEFTY Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
T
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,753
Ridiculous


Originally Posted By: Chunky Monkey
Never been to a camping world. I prefer Dick's to be honest.
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: fadetoblack64] #7659744 11/12/19 06:38 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 26,003
B
bigbob_ftw Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
B
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 26,003
Originally Posted by takewhatyoucan64
The supreme court didn't rule. They didn't take up the argument.


This


[Linked Image]
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: bigbob_ftw] #7659745 11/12/19 06:39 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 85,909
bill oxner Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 85,909
Originally Posted by bigbob_ftw
Originally Posted by takewhatyoucan64
The supreme court didn't rule. They didn't take up the argument.


This

X3


Quail hunting is like walking into, and out of a beautiful painting all day long. Gene Hill


[Linked Image]




Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: fadetoblack64] #7659896 11/12/19 08:48 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,816
P
pegasaurus Offline OP
THF Celebrity
OP Offline
THF Celebrity
P
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by takewhatyoucan64
The supreme court didn't rule. They didn't take up the argument.


True. That means the appeal has no merit and the lower court ruling stands unchallenged.

Therefore the SCOTUS just ruled in favor of the lower court disregarding federal law and did it without a ruling.

Awesome!!

Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: Sniper.270] #7659921 11/12/19 09:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 7,068
J
Jimbo1 Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
J
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 7,068
Not sure of the vote but Roberts has been a let down!

Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: pegasaurus] #7660012 11/12/19 10:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,044
S
Sniper.270 Online Content
Veteran Tracker
Online Content
Veteran Tracker
S
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by pegasaurus
Originally Posted by takewhatyoucan64
The supreme court didn't rule. They didn't take up the argument.


True. That means the appeal has no merit and the lower court ruling stands unchallenged.

Therefore the SCOTUS just ruled in favor of the lower court disregarding federal law and did it without a ruling.

Awesome!!



EXACTLY!

Apologies to the semantical fanatics. Geez


Only through suffering, does true enlightenment come.

Psalms 46:10 Be still and know that I am God
Re: SCOTUS turned away Remingtons appeal of Connecticut ruling. [Re: pegasaurus] #7660143 11/13/19 12:47 AM
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 1,719
R
rolyat.nosaj Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
R
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 1,719
So people can sue, they still gotta win.

Re: SCOTUS turned away Remingtons appeal of Connecticut ruling. [Re: Dry Fire] #7660322 11/13/19 03:34 AM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 3,457
CharlieCTx Online Content
Veteran Tracker
Online Content
Veteran Tracker
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by Dry Fire
I thought the grounds was due to Remington's advertising.


Dry Fire is correct. Given the focus of the suit, it was allowed to continue. The decline to intervene is not an indication it will win

Charlie

Re: SCOTUS turned away Remingtons appeal of Connecticut ruling. [Re: CharlieCTx] #7660344 11/13/19 03:58 AM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 50,457
BOBO the Clown Online Content
decoy
Online Content
decoy
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 50,457
Originally Posted by CharlieCTx
Originally Posted by Dry Fire
I thought the grounds was due to Remington's advertising.


Dry Fire is correct. Given the focus of the suit, it was allowed to continue. The decline to intervene is not an indication it will win

Charlie



This, poor families are going to be paying some hefty legal bills and counter suits


Donate to TX Youth hunting program.... better to donate then to waste it in taxes

https://secure.qgiv.com/for/gtgoh/mobile
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: Sniper.270] #7660624 11/13/19 02:49 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,024
T
Texas Dan Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
T
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,024
Every news report that I've seen says something different...

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a request from the gun industry intended to block a lawsuit from families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims.

The decision lets stand a groundbreaking ruling from the Connecticut Supreme Court that said the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle can be sued and potentially held liable for the 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn."

"Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed"

"Supreme Court allows families of Sandy Hook shooting victims to sue gunmaker Remington"

Last edited by Texas Dan; 11/13/19 02:51 PM.

Dan

Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: Sniper.270] #7660811 11/13/19 04:56 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 17,011
MikeC Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 17,011
You can sue most anyone for anything but you still have to win the case!


www.connerknives.net

In every old body lives a young person wondering what the hell happened!

[Linked Image]
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: Sniper.270] #7661675 11/14/19 02:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,871
C
Choctaw Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
C
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,871
What is disconcerting is that the Supremes declined to shield the gun maker. This opens up a huge can of worms.

Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: Choctaw] #7662302 11/15/19 01:00 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 57,222
S
SnakeWrangler Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
S
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 57,222
Originally Posted by Choctaw
What is disconcerting is that the Supremes declined to shield the gun maker. This opens up a huge can of worms.


This^^^^...and not just for gun makers....add the seller....ammo maker and seller....etc.


Originally Posted by Sneaky
I believe in science and I’m an insufferable dickhead
Originally Posted by beaversnipe
Actually, BBC is pretty damn good

"You Cannot Simultaneously Be Politically Correct And Intellectually Honest!"
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: SnakeWrangler] #7662318 11/15/19 01:24 AM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,459
E
Erny Online Content
Veteran Tracker
Online Content
Veteran Tracker
E
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by SnakeWrangler
Originally Posted by Choctaw
What is disconcerting is that the Supremes declined to shield the gun maker. This opens up a huge can of worms.


This^^^^...and not just for gun makers....add the seller....ammo maker and seller....etc.



Yep and beer for drunk driving, cars manufactures for accidents, even gas stations for selling gasoline used in car that caused accident. The whole thing is idiotic.

Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: Erny] #7662357 11/15/19 01:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 57,222
S
SnakeWrangler Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
S
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 57,222
Originally Posted by Erny
Originally Posted by SnakeWrangler
Originally Posted by Choctaw
What is disconcerting is that the Supremes declined to shield the gun maker. This opens up a huge can of worms.


This^^^^...and not just for gun makers....add the seller....ammo maker and seller....etc.



Yep and beer for drunk driving, cars manufactures for accidents, even gas stations for selling gasoline used in car that caused accident. The whole thing is idiotic.


As usual the left wants to blame anyone and everyone except the guilty person.....be it pulling the trigger, getting behind the wheel, or choosing to do drugs or spend thousands on a worthless degree....it's always somebody else's fault.... 2cents


Originally Posted by Sneaky
I believe in science and I’m an insufferable dickhead
Originally Posted by beaversnipe
Actually, BBC is pretty damn good

"You Cannot Simultaneously Be Politically Correct And Intellectually Honest!"
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: pegasaurus] #7663766 11/16/19 07:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,600
S
syncerus Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
S
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,600
True freedom cannot exist without personal responsibility; the two are inseparable.


NRA Patriot Benefactor & DSC Lifer
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: syncerus] #7663921 11/16/19 10:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 21,194
F
fadetoblack64 Offline
giddyup
Offline
giddyup
F
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 21,194
Originally Posted by syncerus
True freedom cannot exist without personal responsibility; the two are inseparable.


People don't want freedom anymore.............they just want free.


What was washed most in 2020/21? Hands or brains?
Re: Supreme Court Rules [Re: fadetoblack64] #7663981 11/16/19 11:32 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 7,068
J
Jimbo1 Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
J
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 7,068
Originally Posted by takewhatyoucan64
Originally Posted by syncerus
True freedom cannot exist without personal responsibility; the two are inseparable.


People don't want freedom anymore.............they just want free.

Sad but true.

Page 1 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3