Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturer brought by Sandy Hook families

[Richard Coody]

Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturer brought by Sandy Hook families

Now this could become serious gun control

 

[ballisticxlr]

Not even a link? C'mon man. Hook a brutha' up. Need the info source, not just the headline.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

I guess remington will be sued now due to owning bushmaster and that will open the floodgates

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Not even a link? C'mon man. Hook a brutha' up. Need the info source, not just the headline.

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/uh-oh.3991538/

 

[fyrewall]

Source - FOX news - I sort of just know how each of the 9 voted - sort of a mini US Congress

 

[spclark]

... and the suits over how the product was advertised, apparently not over liability issues stemming from buyers’ actions.

 

[VaniB]

Source - FOX news - I sort of just know how each of the 9 voted - sort of a mini US Congress

The libs got you to take the bait with their fake news.

The Supreme Court DIDN'T VOTE. They simply refused to hear the case and let the lower Conn Court Decision on Sandy Hook stand. If you let the liberal media outlets fool you, their topic title will lead one to believe that the SC ruled on the case. They fool you with titles like "Supreme Court Has Gun Manufacturers Taking Responsibility For SandyHook" leading you to believe they took the case and ruled against us.

Yes, I will not deny that it was still a bad precedent set by the Conn Court.

 

[6MMsteve]

you know that every video of sandy crook has been taken off youtube...even the name sandy hook is deleted soon as it is typed in some cases....why were some of the parents laughing post sandy hook...there was a lot of investigation by people on the sandy hook shootin..lots of things don't add up....matrix

 

[T-shooter]

Why should anyone obey laws? The government doesn't! This was passed in 2005.

 

[T-shooter]

Like 911, I don't know what happened but I'm sure it wasn't what the media portrayed. Way too many things that didn't add up. Maybe someday we'll find out.

 

[fyrewall]

Here it is:

https://www.kusi.com/i/supreme-court-lets-sandy-hook-shooting-lawsuit-go-forward/

My thinking is that there was some sort of a mutual agreement among the "justices" (as per AP report) to reject an appeal to the lower court's ruling. Thus a vote was made to make this decision. A vote to allow an appeal followed by a positive ruling might end this but a vote to reject an appeal could likely allow any law suits to go forward.

 

[fyrewall]

The libs got you to take the bait with their fake news.

The Supreme Court DIDN'T VOTE. They simply refused to hear the case and let the lower Conn Court Decision on Sandy Hook stand. If you let the liberal media outlets fool you, their topic title will lead one to believe that the SC ruled on the case. They fool you with titles like "Supreme Court Has Gun Manufacturers Taking Responsibility For SandyHook" leading you to believe they took the case and ruled against us.

Yes, I will not deny that it was still a bad precedent set by the Conn Court.

Please see above & comment

 

[jonbearman]

Nobody will ever know the details. The governor sealed all the documents forever from the public. Mr Habig is still trying to get more documents to prove there were issues with the story how it happened in the first place but to no avail so we may never know. If the supreme court can make laws like they have been doing for decades our laws are in trouble. This means you could sue a hot dog company because you choked to death at Nathans in their eating contest when it was your own hand shoving hotdogs and buns down your throat at speed to win a plastic trophy . This case could open a can of worms we don't want to see.

 

[brokeasajoke]

So I guess if that passes auto manufacturers can be sued for accidents or intentional mis use of an auto as well as alcohol companys for drunk driving accidents. Whole can to open there.

 

[Mark W]

So I guess if that passes auto manufacturers can be sued for accidents or intentional mis use of an auto as well as alcohol companys for drunk driving accidents. Whole can to open there.

Just think of the liquor industry and the stupid crap that drunks do!! Add in sufficient liability insurance for the distillery and a bottle of my favorite bourbon will cost hundreds of dollars.

 

[Ccrider]

Why should there be a federal statute that would prohibit a person from suing a manufacturer?

Why should the Supreme Court waste its time on a state law tort case?

Sure, the claims sound baseless. If they are, the lower courts should be able to figure it out.

 

[Rustytigwire]

There is no right or wrong in our courts..
Twisting lies purely for profit
Fraud and racketeering by the lawyers to make money.
No honesty, no vested interest or concern for long term effect on anyone.
Corrupt.
Judges too.
Simple as that.

 

[ebb]

This wasn't against Remington or for Sandy Hook parents. But it was a major victory for the American Bar Assn.

 

[Ccrider]

Just think of the liquor industry and the stupid crap that drunks do!! Add in sufficient liability insurance for the distillery and a bottle of my favorite bourbon will cost hundreds of dollars.

Yea. But there is no federal statute saying bourbon manufacturers can not be sued.

 

[ckaberna]

So we can sue McDonalds for our waistlines? What a hoot.