Without any explanation the court rejected Remington’s appeal out and allowed for families of victims of the sandy hook massacre to sue in Connecticut’s state court. This is a huge blow to gun manufacturers who have been flooding the market with unaccountable high powered weapons and ammunition since the inception of the so called lawful commerce in arms act. There being no explanation for the rejection can be seen as both good and bad but what it does is show this court is willing to consider allowing state courts to hold gun makers accountable for their reckless practices. This will lead to more responsible sales and weapons on the part of manufacturers.
You have added some bloviating in with the facts. Situation normal The court is basically upholding the right of the plaintiffs to have their day in court, rather than to have the case summarily dismissed. The federal law provides immunity to gun makers but there is an exception clause that says that companies can be held liable where they abusively or fraudulently marketed (my paraphrase) their products. The court is allowing/upholding the right of the plaintiff to make argument under that exception clause. It is clearly a victory for the plaintiffs- but not a ruling on a constitutional issue- it is a procedural ruling and based on interpretation of a statute - not the 2nd Amendment. Even if the plaintiff's won outright- based on the arguments present in the case- it would not automatically mean that assault rifles were banned- but rather that they would have to change their marketing practices. And that, as I said, would also be a clear victory for the plaintiffs- but not for those who are trying to read more into the case, such as whether it is or is not upholding the right of states to ban assault rifles and related. No major heartburn with the court or with me on the ruling. There is a constutition, and there are statutes, and people should be allowed to make argument under the provisions without an automatic dismissal unless there is no basis for argument under the law. But plaintiff identifies an exception clause under the fed statute that reasonably applies if the facts alleged are true and wishes to make argument. Fine.
To be clear I did not state this is a constitutional issue and even cited the law it implies. This is a bigger deal than you let on because it sets a precedent as these types of lawsuits have not had success in the past. The law is concerned in the illegality to sell or market guns and Remington argued recklessness in marketing isn’t illegal. This dismissal of appeal says otherwise. This creates an incredible liability for manufacturers and leaves open the possibility to judgements that not only award monetary damages but impose responsibility in advertising. Think cigarettes.
I won't get circular on this. As I said earlier: The court refused to buy into the idea that remington's arguments were so clear on their face that the case should be dismissed, and the Supreme Court sided with the state court in allowing argument and the case to go forward in the state court. Both parties still have to make their case there, but yes it is always a victory for a plaintiff to be able to go forward. Probably the bigger "victory" or attention-getter is that the Court is allowing and accepting the position that the federal statute and its language is the controlling factor rather than direct rights flowing from the 2nd Amendment. Which allows both sides to beat their chest and say what they will do if elected and become either president or lawmaker.
Just another example of how our legal system is ruining the country. No doubt Chief Justice Spineless went along with the leftwingers on the Court. This case is an abomination that has been churning around in the state and federal courts for years. There is a clearcut federal law that prohibits this type of case. It was enacted in response to the attempts by anti gun fanatics to bankrupt gun manufacturers and dealers with abusive cases. The case is based on the ludicrous theory that Remington marketed the gun in a way that appealed to those interested in mass shootings and that "military" weapons should not be sold to the public. One glaring flaw in that argument is that the shooter did not purchase the gun. His mother did. The whole thing is an outrage that points out just how fucked up our legal system is.
No. The Congress can regulate guns, it isn’t in question as the LCAA does just that. As I said, think cigarettes with this. Try to remember how marketing toward kids verdicts were big game changers. It turned into warning labels, strict advertising rules, PSA announcements.
The Congress can regulate guns within limits that do not violate 2nd amendment rights. Probably you knew that. So act like you do.
the justice system is fucked. DC is a swamp. the second amendment is under attack. the executive branch is filled with treasonous douchebags. feds are not cutting the rates to zero. Congress is paralyzed. liberals have taken over. whites are under attacked and can't be proud of their whiteness. let's pull the troops out of everywhere and send them to Mexico cause Mormons can't freely fuck their multiple wives even in Mexico. immigrants are taking over and blah blah blah. you are the most fucking negative asshole on this board. you should get the fuck of the country. apply for citizenship in Russia. they do everything you like the way you like it.