Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Supreme Court Won't Intervene to Protect Gun Manufacturer From Sandy Hook Suit
By the simple expedient of denying (without comment) the Remington Arms Company a hearing, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a state court lawsuit in Connecticut to move forward holding the gun manufacturer liable for damages associated with the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Remington and its gun lobby allies had argued the company was shielded from liability by a 2005 federal law aimed at precisely that purpose. But attorneys representing families of Sandy Hook victims argued that the federal law included an exemption for actions that violated separate state laws, and sought an opportunity in a trial to make the case that Remington’s marketing of its weapons ran afoul of Connecticut laws prohibiting unfair trade practices.
The state trial judge ruled in favor of Remington, but in March the Connecticut Supreme Court (in a 4-3 decision) disagreed, allowing the suit to go forward. Since interpretation of a federal law was the key issue, the arms company appealed to SCOTUS, leading to today’s decision not to intervene.
This does not mean the plaintiffs will necessarily prevail at trial. But they will be given the opportunity to make their argument, which will open up all sorts of avenues for forcing weapons manufacturers to disclose the dark secrets of their marketing strategies, and how they affect people like the Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza. The New York Times explained that angle after the Connecticut court’s ruling:
Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.
The state trial judge ruled in favor of Remington, but in March the Connecticut Supreme Court (in a 4-3 decision) disagreed, allowing the suit to go forward. Since interpretation of a federal law was the key issue, the arms company appealed to SCOTUS, leading to today’s decision not to intervene.
This does not mean the plaintiffs will necessarily prevail at trial. But they will be given the opportunity to make their argument, which will open up all sorts of avenues for forcing weapons manufacturers to disclose the dark secrets of their marketing strategies, and how they affect people like the Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza. The New York Times explained that angle after the Connecticut court’s ruling:
Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/supreme-court-lets-sandy-hook-suit-proceed-against-gun-maker.html
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
