CT Supreme Court-Remington CAN be sued for Sandy Hook

zukiphile said:
The parties suing in CT aren't consumers, but people injured by the intervening criminal act of a third party bringing exactly the kind of claim prohibited by the PLCAA.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, and one that the majority in the Connecticut Supreme Court overlooked (perhaps through ignorance, perhaps due to pursuit of an agenda).

There's also the fact that, technically, the shooter was a "consumer" within the context of the Connecticut law because he didn't buy the gun, his mother did. And he killed her to get at it.

Of course, if the trial really goes down that rabbit hole, it will probably come out that the mother bought it for him because that was the gun he wanted, and that he had access to it at any time because the mother allowed him to have access to wherever the firearms were stored.
 
The most annoying part of this is, they've already tried this and failed.

The lead attorney, Koskoff, represented the Brady Center when they sued Lucky Gunner in 2017. He did so "on behalf" of Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, who were left holding the bag for over $100,000 in legal fees when Lucky Gunner prevailed.

I'm shocked he has the audacity to be trying this again. There need to be repercussions.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
In theory, I agree that it can work both ways. In practice, however, it has been my observation in the course of my 75 years on this orbital spitball we call Earth that -- in general -- it is primarily liberal judges who are prone to folding, bending, twisting and mutilating the law to fit their agendas. Conservative judges, in my experience and observation, are much more likely to forego their personal agendas and apply the law as it is written.

.
Click to expand...
Some snipped.
I guess we’ll have to disagree, but I’m ‘only’ 68. I’d say legislation from the bench has been a problem for both sides of the ‘isle’, roughly equally. Both are bad, regardless of whether you agree with their ruling or not.
 
TXAZ said:
Maybe so 44AMP, but the can of worms is way more open.

And hello Connecticut firearm and other companies. "Wrongful marketing" just made us millionaires because your marketing didn't meet our expectations.

This can of worms does provide new opportunities for all of us:

With the deadeye accuracy implied in their Colt ad, the next time your Colt doesn't put 5 rounds through the same hole at 1,000 yards, you're gonna sue. (And Remington, Wildey, Standard, Mossberg, Sturm Ruger, Wilson and Charter Arms). Guess who's moving out soon.

The next time Synchrony Financial makes a mistake on a credit card bill, you're going to sue for wrongful marketing. In Connecticut.

The next time my Black and Decker drill doesn't go through the wood as quick and smoothly as the advertisement, you're gonna sue. In Connecticut.

The next time Priceline doesn't give the absolutely lowest price, you're going to sue their holding company. In Connecticut.

(Here are 2 really easy ones)
The next time Frontier Communications has an outage, we're all gonna sue.
The next time Charter Communications cable doesn't provide a full (and marketed) 100Mbits up and down, same thing, we're all gonna sue. In Connecticut.

The next time United Rental's backhoe doesn't slice through hard rock like a hot knife through butter, sue. In Connecticut.

The next time Facebook ads for Connecticut aren't perfectly accurate, you're gonna sue them through their remote workers in Bridgeport. In Connecticut.

Etc, etc, etc.

All of these are based (or with facilities/ employees) in Connecticut.
Click to expand...

From Franks link.

Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.
Click to expand...

I don't think the scenarios you presented fall under CT law.
 
Why not Steve? They’re all companies located in or with facilities/ personnel in the same state now claiming “wrongful marketing” as a tort.
 
Key words,

Encourage violent and criminal behavior.

Call me crazy, but I don't think, not getting the group size as advertised, is encouraging Criminal Behavior.
 
steve4102 said:
Key words,

Encourage violent and criminal behavior.

Call me crazy, but I don't think, not getting the group size as advertised, is encouraging Criminal Behavior.
Click to expand...
And that’s clearly not the case in the hypothetical examples provided.
 
Natman said:
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v0/1000x-1.jpg
Click to expand...

I must be missing something in that ad. No where do I see "The perfect weapon for mowing down masses of innocent people".
 
No where do I see "The perfect weapon for mowing down masses of innocent people"
Click to expand...
It's a rifle designed for sale to the military, so it fits the "weapons of war have no place on our streets" meme. But, as you said, one heck of a stretch.
 
Is that even the rifle that was used at Sandy Hook? Connecticut had an AWB in place at the time -- whatever he had could not have had a flash hider, bayonet lug, or telescoping stock. My fuzzy recollection of photos at the time of the incident is that I was looking at a fairly commonplace M4gery sort of rifle, with a telescoping-looking stock that was probably glued or pinned to to be Connecticut compliant.
 
There’s a picture of an officer holding up the gun. It had a fixed stock, no flash hider or bayonet lug. Otherwise looked like a cheap AR15. Had scary appendages still front sight post and all
 
2af89fc934bdd33ed53cf225f48f8738.jpg


Tried to post the pic before and it was mega huge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Specifically, they allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.
Click to expand...

I have been searching for the above in the Connecticut unfair trade practices act.

To big and to much legalese for me. Can you guys break it down and show where this "encourage violent and criminal" behavior in advertising is a violation of CT law?
 
I just did a search of Bushmaster AR's and could not find a single BM with that type of fixed stock, straight plain barrel and no flash hider.

I do not believe that firearm is a BM, it's a Colt.
 
Wouldnt they have to prove that the shooter actually read/saw this marketing in order to be influenced by it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top