Supreme Court Rules Sandy Hook Parents Can Sue Remington For Deaths Of Children
Talk about absolute stupidity and lawlessness! How can a company that manufactures a product be held liable for a criminal misusing their product? Well, I guess we’ll have to ask the Supreme Court of the united States because they have ruled against Remington Arms in their appeal against a group of parents who illogically and emotionally believe the gun manufacturer is responsible for the deaths of their children, not the criminal who used the weapon unlawfully.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected a Hail Mary appeal from Remington Arms, which was founded over 200 years ago and claims to be the oldest gun manufacturer in the U.S. The gunmaker had asked the high court to hear its case after the Connecticut Supreme Court greenlit a lawsuit to hold the company accountable for the massacre that left 20 young children and six adults dead in Newtown, Connecticut.
- How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
- Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
- Build Your Own Food Forest & Save 5% With Promo Code TIMBROWN
- Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
- Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
- Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
- Save Up To 66% Off MyPillow with Promo Code TIMBROWN
Tuesday’s decision allows victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers going forward and could have massive ramifications for the future of the industry. The justices didn’t comment on why they chose to reject the appeal.
In November 2017, family members of the victims filed suit against Remington and accused the gunmaker of aggressively marketing and glorifying its products — including the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting — to vulnerable young men.
Gun rights groups argued the case could upend existing protections afforded to the firearm industry by Congress. The families’ lawsuit challenges a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun companies from liability and passed after aggressive lobbying from the NRA.
The NRA, Connecticut-based gun organizations, nine states, Second Amendment law professors, and 22 members of Congress had thrown their weight behind Remington.
- Leaked Emails: Obama’s WH Used Emotional Propaganda To Push For Gun Control
- O’Rourke Takes Verbal Beatdown From 2nd Amendment Loving Woman in Newtown, Connecticut (Video)
- Sandy Hook Commission Recommendation: Confiscate all Guns that Fire more than 10 Rounds – Who Cares about Constitutionality?
Perhaps the first thing that should occur in this is a full discovery opened into what actually did and did not take place at Sandy Hook in December 2012, and the first thing that needs to occur is full disclosure into the clean up.
- The Definitive Sandy Hook “Lack Of Blood” Cleanup Documentation You Won’t Hear In The Media
- Sandy Hook & the Murder of the First Amendment
- In 2015 A Federal Expert Witness & Forensic Analyst Concluded That Sandy Hook Child Victim Avielle Richman May Still Be Alive
The ultimate question though should be, on what basis is this lawful?
The answer can be found that it is unlawful on its face in a report in The Washington Post.
“Gun manufacturers throughout the country should be on notice that they’ll need to answer for their reckless business practices in the courts,” Eric Tirschwell, managing director of litigation for Everytown Law, said in a statement.
“This reaffirms that the gun industry is not above the law and that the families of the Sandy Hook victims will have their day in court,” he said.
The Connecticut court’s 4-to-3 decision in March overcame a federal law backed by the National Rifle Association and designed to immunize gunmakers from liability for the crimes committed with their weapons.
The narrow state court decision limited liability for gunmakers based on how they advertise their firearms, rather than on the sale to third parties who go on to commit crimes. In its ruling, the court said companies that market military-style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies could be violating state fair-trade laws. (emphasis mine)
In other words, the court said, “Screw the law,” we’ll become activist judges and ignore the law and our ruling is law.
That’s not how it’s supposed to work people. The judges who voted in favor of the lawsuit going forward should be impeached, as well as those on the Supreme Court.
And why? Here’s why.
“Lawsuits that deflect attention away from mental illness and criminals in order to blame inanimate objects won’t reduce violent crime or make anyone safer,” Jason Ouimet, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement Tuesday.
“The firearm on which citizens and first responders rely isn’t the actual problem; the sociopath who steals and misuses a firearm against innocent people is the real problem,” he said.
Bingo! To quote Joe Biden.
That is exactly the issue here. Remington didn’t commit a crime. Therefore, why should parents, who sent their children to statist indoctrination centers where teachers and staff were disarmed by their tyrannical governments, making them easy prey for criminals, be allowed to sue someone that made a product? In fact, Ouimet’s comment also alludes to the fact that the alleged shooter didn’t even own a gun. He stole it!
Has anyone seen the movie Runaway Jury with John Cusack and Rachel Weisz? While the story is based on a school shooting that impacted the lives of many people and two young people sought to turn a jury against gun manufacturers and hold them responsible for the murders at the schools, it is eerily similar to what we are witnessing taking place in this frivolous lawsuit by Sandy Hook parents.
Furthermore, this is all about painting guns and gun manufacturers as evil and wicked.
A survivor and families of nine other victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting are attempting to hold Remington Arms Company, the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the crime, partly responsible by targeting the company’s marketing strategy.
Lawyers for the victims sued Remington contending that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon — in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.
The rifle was “designed as a military weapon” and “engineered to deliver maximum carnage” with extreme efficiency, they argue in legal briefs.
The attorneys said Tuesday they are ready to resume discovery and proceed towards trial “to shed light on Remington’s profit-driven strategy” to expand the market for high-powered, semi-automatic guns and “court high-risk users at the expense of Americans’ safety.”
That’s all well and good, but being “profit-driven” had nothing to do with a man who stole guns and murdered people, does it? In other words, this is a frivolous lawsuit that isn’t holding anyone accountable. It’s a mechanism to go after the Second Amendment.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media