Supreme Court Rules Sandy Hook Lawsuit May Proceed

Frank59 · Nov 12, 2019

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

kozmic · Nov 12, 2019

Awesome precedent to set... it's great, now drunk driving victims can sue Ford and Chevy. :beat:

busykngt · Nov 12, 2019

Thought there was a law that specifically prohibited this type product liability lawsuit. Is SCOTUS saying they find that law unconstitutional? (Not sure how you could read anything but that, from their decision). Interesting....

oldag · Nov 12, 2019

No. SCOTUS did not rule on anything.

Rather SCOTUS decided not to hear the appeal. No precedent is set.

The trial will continue at the state level.

I do wish SCOTUS had intervened.

Renegade · Nov 12, 2019

Will end just like this

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...ents-broke-suing-gun-seller-article-1.2583138

This is a horribly weak case to take to court, since the shooter did not actually buy the gun, but killed his mother and stole it.

pronstar · Nov 12, 2019

busykngt said:
Thought there was a law that specifically prohibited this type product liability lawsuit. Is SCOTUS saying they find that law unconstitutional? (Not sure how you could read anything but that, from their decision). Interesting....

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act...I’m also not sure how SCOTUS is allowing this to continue?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

oldag · Nov 12, 2019

Roberts has shied away from controversy for a while now.

45tex · Nov 12, 2019

I think they are allowing the case to continue in Connecticut and have effect only in Connecticut.
I know I (an avowed S&W fanboy) won't buy another S&W product as long as they stay in Connecticut. Connecticut does not deserve any support. If they had a damn bit of sense they would set up shop in Texas.

Renegade · Nov 12, 2019

45tex said:
I think they are allowing the case to continue in Connecticut and have effect only in Connecticut.

Huh? There is no way for it to only have an effect in CT.

rotor · Nov 12, 2019

In the meantime gun manufacturers will have to spend a ton of money to defend themselves in an industry that financially is not doing that well right now and the eventual cost of those legal battles is paid for by you and me. In the Colorado case Lucky Gunner was awarded $200k but probably will never see a penny.

oldag · Nov 12, 2019

Renegade said:
Huh? There is no way for it to only have an effect in CT.

A CT state court case will only set precedent in CT.

Renegade · Nov 12, 2019

oldag said:
A CT state court case will only set precedent in CT.

PLCAA is a Federal Law. IF SCOTUS decides to not enforce it, that sets precedent in every state and possession in USA.

HKShooter65 · Nov 12, 2019

Knowing attorneys, as I do......

The floodgates have just been opened!

oldag · Nov 12, 2019

Renegade said:
PLCAA is a Federal Law. IF SCOTUS decides to not enforce it, that sets precedent in every state and possession in USA.

SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal at this time. Read the article. No precedent is set.

Renegade · Nov 12, 2019

oldag said:
SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal at this time. Read the article. No precedent is set.

I did read it, along with many others. You need to comprehend what it means.

They declined the appeal to grant certiorari on the application of the PLCAA.

Thus the case will go forward. When the case is over, the defendant can then appeal all the way to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS declining the appeal to grant certiorari, is a 50 state precedent. When the trial is over, that will also be a 50 state precedent. There is no possibly way to contain the case to CT.

easy rider · Nov 12, 2019

45tex said:
I think they are allowing the case to continue in Connecticut and have effect only in Connecticut.
I know I (an avowed S&W fanboy) won't buy another S&W product as long as they stay in Connecticut. Connecticut does not deserve any support. If they had a damn bit of sense they would set up shop in Texas.

Huh? Colt and Ruger I believe is out of Connecticut, but S&W started in Norwich, Conn. but then moved to Springfield, Massachusetts, but I could be wrong.

jrbfishn · Nov 12, 2019

I don't know why ANY firearm related company would do business in Conn..

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

boomgoesthedynamite · Nov 12, 2019

I read that the case was tossed until they amended the complaint to be in how Remington marketed the Bushmaster. Plca has an exclusion for marketing. I read it as if you market a gun to kill a bunch of people, and then someone kills a bunch of people, plca would not protect them.

It sounds like a total stretch, but I see them winning a bs case that gets overturned on appeal.

Sent from my GM1900 using Tapatalk

oldag · Nov 12, 2019

Renegade said:
I did read it, along with many others. You need to comprehend what it means.

They declined the appeal to grant certiorari on the application of the PLCAA.

Thus the case will go forward. When the case is over, the defendant can then appeal all the way to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS declining the appeal to grant certiorari, is a 50 state precedent. When the trial is over, that will also be a 50 state precedent. There is no possibly way to contain the case to CT.

Sigh...

SCOTUS only sets a precedent when it issues a ruling.

Whistler · Nov 12, 2019

The curse is coming to pass "may you live in interesting times"

Supreme Court Rules Sandy Hook Lawsuit May Proceed

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

Wheel Gunner

Member

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

SuperOwner

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

SuperOwner

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

SuperOwner

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

SuperOwner

Summer Slacker

TGT Addict

Active Member

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Forum statistics