Scotus -oh dear, Remington

[TDA]

I’m in the same boat, but the article claims that some exemption in the law is what is allowing the suit to go forward. Of course no link to said law segment or ruling is offered.

Does this mean we can now start suing GM for teenagers driving muscle cars and getting into accidents?

So if the advertising and product placement into video games is an issue, why isn’t the video game a target as well?

Because this is results oriented jurisprudence in a politically motivated case against a designated target?

[wvincent]

It's noteworthy how the AP wire story seems to be intentionally worded to give the impression that Remington lost a case after argument in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court didn't do anything except decline the petition for Cert. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_db8e.pdf) which can happen for a variety of reasons, but does not include an explanation.

Yes, noteworthy indeed.
Trying to create a false narrative. Who would have thought?

[Totem Polar]

Yes, noteworthy indeed.
Trying to create a false narrative. Who would have thought?

[blues]

If I were LL, I'd be a little concerned about being hauled before the courts for the buying frenzies he engenders. Are you listening, LL! May be time to flee to a country with no extradition treaty...

[Borderland]

If I were LL, I'd be a little concerned about being hauled before the courts for the buying frenzies he engenders. Are you listening, LL! May be time to flee to a country with no extradition treaty...

They would arrest him at the airport with all that cash I suspect.

[RoyGBiv]

Is a Cert vote public record? Do we know who voted against?

[JohnO]

I don't understand this one.

Perhaps GM and all auto makers along with Budweiser and the rest of the spirit manufacturers need to pucker up because if this flies, Holy Crap!

[Hambo]

Is a Cert vote public record? Do we know who voted against?

I haven't found anything except a list of denied cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_db8e.pdf

[the Schwartz]

There won’t be a SCOTUS opinion as it’s a denial of cert. Instead of affirming the CT court opinion, SCOTUS is declining to hear the case, which means the lower court’s ruling stands, but is only controlling for CT. It can be persuasive in other jurisdictions, but they aren’t obligated to follow it. If another jurisdiction rules differently, that increases the likelihood that SCOTUS may address the issue later due to conflicting interpretations of the law.

Link to the CT Supreme Court opinion:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supa...1/331CR865.pdf

I believe that I see the possible motive for a denial of cert in that SCOTUS might see precedent (namely, Heller, Heller ll and MacDonald) working against plaintiffs' liability theories—

"The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users."

And that this language contained later in the body of the denial—

1. The trial court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs did not plead a legally sufficient cause of action based on negligent entrustment under this state’s common law and, therefore, properly struck the plaintiffs’ claims predicated on that legal theory: the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants had any reason to expect that L’s mother, the direct purchaser of the rifle, was likely to use the rifle in an unsafe manner or in a manner that would involve an unreasonable risk of physical harm; moreover, this court declined the plaintiffs’ invitation to expand the common-law doctrine of negligent entrustment to allow such a cause of action to proceed on a theory that it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendants that, following the initial entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality, such as the rifle in question, that instrumentality would come into the possession of someone like L, who would use it in an unsafe manner, and, in any event, it was unnecessary to decide whether,in the present case, a cause of action for negligent entrustment could proceed under such a theory because the plaintiffs did not allege that any of the defendants possessed any knowledge or had any specific reason to believe either that L’s mother would share the rifle with L or that L was especially likely to operate it unsafely or illegally; furthermore,to the extent that the plaintiffs were seeking to pursue their negligent entrustment claim on the theory that any commercial sale of assault weapons to civilian users constitutes negligent entrustment because the societal costs of such sales outweigh the perceived benefits, this court followed the lead of other courts in rejecting that theory.

—might be relied upon in future proceedings as the nail in that particular coffin.

[Ed L]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...lawsuit-069826

Guess the new court isn't our saviors. Of course, this is hot off the presses. But the suit goes on!

Yeah, it's really too bad that Hillary did not get elected. Because she would have been so much more pro-gun than Trump, and would have certainly elected more pro-gun judges.