The US Supreme Court let us down.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Connecticute Supreme Court?  Are you sure?  I hope you are right.  I thought it was the US Supreme Court but I could be wrong.  I get things wrong from time to time.  If I'm wrong then there is still hope that we can stop this law suit and preserve the 2nd amendment for future generations and ourselves. 

yes, shooting was in Connecticut and this is a state issue to date. They tried to make it read like the us supreme court. I was tricked at 1st and re-read.

Not the way I read it..


“In March, the Connecticut Supreme Court breathed new life into the families' lawsuit when it ruled they can sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians. That decision reversed a Connecticut superior court's ruling that would have ended the case.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up Remington's appeal, the case will return to a lower court in Connecticut.”

Remington appealed to the SCOTUS and they declined to take it up.

qz.com/1747296/scotus-wont-let-remington-arms-dodge-sandy-hook-bullet/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo




From this idiotic piece: "The Sandy Hook families sued the company, arguing that it “negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an AR-15 assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel, and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.” They contend that any use of the assault rifle in a civilian context amounts to negligence. Yet the company markets the gun to civilians and uses military imagery to do so. Therefore, they say, the company’s sales and marketing materials are deceptive."

How can a lawsuit be allowed to proceed when their "smoking gun" isn`t factual? An AR15 is not a military rifle, in fact, it`s functionality is exactly the same as any semi-automatic hunting rifle. So yes, the subject line of your thread is accurate, by refusing to protect this arms manufacturer, the Supreme Court did indeed let us down.

I found this on the Outdoorwire and thought some would like to read it...

Here's a link to the article www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/e8ca6199-51d4-4a1a-a2e4-dd8f5af2cd69

Here's the text of the article, less the ads...



As the demonization of the gun industry -and by extension, gun owners- continues, it may be time for everyone to take a very deep breath and ask a few tough questions. First, are we figuratively shooting ourselves in the foot when we talk about “sporting rifles’ and market them via images of warfighters?

Yes, mil-spec is a term of art that’s applied to almost everything manufactured today.

And mil-spec doesn’t mean a product is “weaponized”. It means the product has been designed and engineered to perform in the worst conditions possible. That’s not weaponization, it’s ruggedization - which is a term that used to be applied to automotive components adapted for off-road usage.

Trucks are ruggedized. So are ATVs. And while they’ve both been militarized and are up to mil-spec, but they’re not marketed as “the same vehicles used by Navy SEALS to kill our enemies.” They’re pushed as “tough enough for any job you need to do.”

In consumer advertising that’s a huge differentiation. And it goes to the heart of the lawsuit brought by the families of the Sandy Hook victims. Their assertion is that Remington/Bushmaster marketed their products in such a way that was especially appealing to the Adam Lanzas of the world.

For many of us, that’s a totally ridiculous assertion. But we can’t speak to the mind of crazies (I hope). If you’re feeling impotent about your situation, are insanely angry at the world and want to make a name for yourself while wiping out as many defenseless people as possible, would you be attracted by a product with advertising that tells you it will “reissue your man card” cause your “forces of opposition” to “bow down” or said “your purpose is our purpose”?

Those, unfortunately, are three of the ads Bushmaster used contemporaneous to the Sandy Hook shooting (see images below). And while a rational individual has no problem drawing a correct inference (our products are high-quality and perform as designed), the lawsuit against Remington is working to make the point that Remington’s advertising is designed to go after the wanna-be, whether he be a “mall ninja” or an insane killer.


Do these ads seek to assure consumers of the product’s quality or look to capture the imagination of the unstable? A Connecticut jury could be asked to decide that question.
It sounds like quite a reach- and it is- but there’s more there. The suit will require access to Remington’s internal advertising and marketing information.

That may well be the ultimate goal. If discovery uncovers even a single communication that contains an offhanded remark (“every mall ninja will want one”) they will have cracked open a door that could potentially allow similar lawsuits against every firearms maker - in every state with consumer protection laws.

Consumer protection laws aren’t written for the singular purpose of protecting consumers from shoddy products or unscrupulous marketing. They’re also written to protect consumers lacking any common sense from themselves.

If that’s the premise under which these consumer protection laws are, in fact drawn, especially those in liberal states like Connecticut, everyone in the industry side of “the gun culture” should be concerned.

During oral arguments in 2017, the lawyer for the families told judges exactly what they hope their discovery in this apparently-happening lawsuit will enable them to prove: “Remington may never have known (Lanza), but they had been courting him for years.”

Ultimately, here’s the argument they’re hoping to make: The gun industry says it creates ad campaigns designed to appeal to discerning consumers, but they’re actually veiled messages designed to connect with the angry, the disenfranchised, and possibly, insane - like Adam Lanza.

That’s a frightening thought to consider -and one that’s already driving legal firms across the country to encourage their clients in the firearms industry to consider.

Speaking with several people involved in the firearms industry, I was surprised to discover that several of them are already looking at ways to combat potential liability. The ranged from various corporate measures designed to protect the assets of the company to the addition of a line to be included on advertising - whether in Connecticut or any other area where guns and gun owners are looked upon as undesirables.

The line? Here you go: “The ______(Your modern sporting rifle here) is NOT a military weapon.”

Between now and the end of our year (December 20 in case you’re wondering), we’re going to be looking at several of the big questions facing the industry over the next 18-24 months.

As we do the research, it has become apparent that it has the potential to be very challenging - for everyone from manufacturers to consumers.

And as always, we’ll keep you posted.

—JIm Shepherd

Sorry, but I reject this stuff out of hand as nonsense. It doesn't matter how firearms are advertised or marketed. Period. This crazy talk is playing into the hands of the anti`s, and if you buy into this silly stuff, you are a part of the problem. This is effectively apologizing for demanding the support of constitutional rights, and I reject this today, tomorrow, and for good.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says extremely clearly, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There are no explanations or apologies necessary. If this lunacy from Shepard suits you, you ought to think about where you really stand on the matter.