Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Walter Hinteler,

Presumably once this frivolous lawsuit fails, Remington will be able to recoup their legal fees by seizing the homes and retirement accounts of the people who sued them.

Meanwhile a hedge fund has agreed to become a major lender to Remington:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-remington-whitebox-exclusive/exclusive-hedge-fund-whitebox-places-big-bet-on-gunmaker-remington-idUSKBN1XL17B

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

This is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine the precedent this can set. Subaru is advertised as a safe car. If someone gets killed in a Subaru in an accident,, can they sue Subaru?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The NRA called the lawsuit "company-killing".

The tobacco companies fared fairly well after their lawsuits.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

If someone gets killed in a Subaru in an accident,, can they sue Subaru?

Sure. Witness the recent trouble with the faulty Takata airbags. In fatal auto accidents an investigation is made to determine whether the death is due to operator error or a mechanical defect.

1 Reply

@hightor,

"Suing over an actual mechanical defect" is a bit different from "suing because someone died after Subaru was advertised as being safe."

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Not if the defect is in the safety system.

1 Reply

@hightor,

This isn't a lawsuit over a defect. This is a lawsuit about advertising claims. There is no defect.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Sure. So if a car advertised as being "safe" is involved in a fatal accident an investigation will seek to determine if the safety system is defective. A car advertised as "safe" doesn't mean it's promising total invulnerability.

1 Reply

@hightor,

The lawsuit against Remington is like suing Subaru for a non-defective car because it did not provide total invulnerability.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

At least you get it.

0 Replies

Remington violated the exceptions in the 2005 law which protects firearms manufacturers.

Quote:

The case tests the reach of a 2005 law passed by Congress to protect firearms manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed by gun purchasers. That law was hailed by the National Rifle Association, but it included exceptions, including one for violating rules related to marketing and advertising.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/12/supreme-court-sandy-hook-lawsuit-gun-manufacturer-proceed/2565344001/

1 Reply

@revelette3,

revelette3 wrote:

Remington violated the exceptions in the 2005 law which protects firearms manufacturers.

No they didn't. The idea that their advertising was responsible for this carnage is ludicrous.

When this frivolous lawsuit finally fails, Remington needs to seize these people's assets to recoup their legal costs.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Not frivolous. No legal basis to srize assets. Your approval of gun violence dis qualifies you for rational discussion.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Wrong again. Suing over baseless claims is frivolous.

And the law specifically allows gun manufacturers to seize the assets of people who make frivolous lawsuits against them, to recoup their legal costs.

You cannot provide any examples of irrationality in my posts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That scotus let the case proceed is a good argument its not frivolous. Hope they get a well deserved multi million dollar win against remington.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Most of your postssuffer from irrationality or illogic opr both. If that is in fact shielding gun makers from the fatal consequences of their actions its yet another argument to vote nra lackeys lut in 2020.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You cannot provide any examples of irrationality or illogic in any of my posts.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

That scotus let the case proceed is a good argument its not frivolous.

That the claim is absurd is a good argument that the case is frivolous.

MontereyJack wrote:

Hope they get a well deserved multi million dollar win against remington.

That progressives hope for injustice is a good argument for shipping all progressives down to Guantanamo so they can't bother any Americans with their hate.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

But irrationally obvious lies abound by you and your followers.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You agree with this SC ruling, but if they rule against NY and support the Rights of citizens, are you going to claim it was wrong ruling?

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know