https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-lets-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gunmaker-proceed

"The decision will have immediate and severe consequences, exposing the firearms industry to costly and burdensome litigation,"

Even if they win, they still had to go to court and pay for attorney's.   WIll people be able to sue Toyota if someone drives drink and kills someone?  Or Anheiser Bush>?

This will open a Pandoras Box should the Plaintiffs win.

Like CMO says, car manufacturers, etc.... What about tool companies and hammers

Awesome!!! I’m going to sue spoon companies for making me fat. CHA-CHING!!! 

Awesome!!! I’m going to sue spoon companies for making me fat. CHA-CHING!!! 

Dont forget the fork companies as well.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So basically the case rest on a a Remington ad that triggered Lanza.

So he shot his mom with her 22win. Then stole her xm15 and Glock. But yes, the ad was geared toward him.

At most his mom bought the rifle for him, which would make it an illegal straw purchase.

Lets also not forget that 2 types of guns were used. Pistol and rifle. But no lawsuit to Glock.

Also the father who just lost his daughter whom was caught laughing seconds before his sad, emotional press conference. Or the trees that were planted after the shooting. #falseflag

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

3:01

Getting into character

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The shooter was diagnosed with mental illnesses.

The weapon used was sold legally to his mother, not to the shooter.

The shooter used an illegally-obtained weapon after he tried to buy one legally, but didn't want to deal with the waiting period -- most likely because he was afraid the background check would turn up his medical issues.


So, how can the manufacturer be blamed for:

(1) selling a legally produced, marketed and sold item

(2) complying with more government controls than applied to pharmaceuticals

(3) selling through an FFL to a citizen who passed the background check

(4) keeping the weapon locked in a gun safe via the owner

(5) and having the weapon stolen and used in a crime by a mentally ill relative?

Maybe we can sue the parents of the Bushmaster company owners, investors and employees, since they were responsible for birthing and raising these gun-making monsters!!   

So much for a conservative Supreme Court...

Maybe we can sue the parents of the Bushmaster company owners, investors and employees, since they were responsible for birthing and raising these gun-making monsters!!   

Maybe Jews can sue any bloodline of Hitler as well, if there are any.  Last I heard there was a sailor who had the bloodline.  He chose not to have kids to end it.  Not sure if true or just a story.

So much for a conservative Supreme Court...

This is what worries me.  Trump has stated that the assault on the 2a is over.  He got more picks to stack the SCOTUS on our side and at circuit courts.  But all actions show otherwise.  Bump stock ban, no help from him for reciprocity, meeting with Feinstein to ban guns, no red flag help, now this.  The only thing he did that was pro2a was sign the XO saying mentally disabled medicare people can own guns (undoing Barrys law).

If he didn't have the huge accomplishments he has, I might be looking into taking sides with crazy Maizie.

I really hope this is 4D chess

The shooter was diagnosed with mental illnesses.

The weapon used was sold legally to his mother, not to the shooter.

The shooter used an illegally-obtained weapon after he tried to buy one legally, but didn't want to deal with the waiting period -- most likely because he was afraid the background check would turn up his medical issues.


So, how can the manufacturer be blamed for:

(1) selling a legally produced, marketed and sold item

(2) complying with more government controls than applied to pharmaceuticals

(3) selling through an FFL to a citizen who passed the background check

(4) keeping the weapon locked in a gun safe via the owner

(5) and having the weapon stolen and used in a crime by a mentally ill relative?

Maybe we can sue the parents of the Bushmaster company owners, investors and employees, since they were responsible for birthing and raising these gun-making monsters!!   

So basically the case rest on a a Remington ad that triggered Lanza.

So he shot his mom with her 22win. Then stole her xm15 and Glock. But yes, the ad was geared toward him.

At most his mom bought the rifle for him, which would make it an illegal straw purchase.

Lets also not forget that 2 types of guns were used. Pistol and rifle. But no lawsuit to Glock.

Also the father who just lost his daughter whom was caught laughing seconds before his sad, emotional press conference. Or the trees that were planted after the shooting. #falseflag

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I really hope this is 4D chess

The problem is even if it is, you're allowing a suit to be able to come to court that should not even have a chance to be heard.  This would cost the Remmington and any future gun company millions in defense cost.

I don't see the Sandy Hook people winning (not victims).  See my above post about Lanza stealing the guns from his mom.

I agree. Even allowing this to see the light of day is disconcerting. It does open the door for all sorts of entities to sue gun manufacturers and it will spill over into all other venues. I can see the aftermarket car product companies getting sued by groups also. (If you hadn't marketed the tires, wheels, computer programming, etc to make cars more dangerous, my 17 year old son wouldn't have been street racing and killed himself)