Supreme Court Will not Hear Appeal of CT case to Protect Firearms Manufacturers

Ok....you probably/might know more about this case than me.....Full Disclaimer....There is no way in hell that anyone on here is going to convince me that a 50-something year old woman from Connecticut, with some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet, who is a para-pro at an elementary school and collecting about $250k/yr in child support and alimony, with an insane kid that weighed about 75lbs, was such an avid shooter and collector of firearms that she had a gun safe full of guns in the house, one such gun happened to be a Bushmaster AR.......nope...........anywho........

Maybe I’m splitting hairs....when any of us owns an AR15 pattern rifle, it is called an, Assault Rifle. When the cops have an AR15 pattern rifle, it is called a, Patrol Rifle.

Most departments will not allow the rank&file officer, that has an AR, to have a full auto one. That option is usually left to the SWAT type guys. And for those that have toted an M4, going full auto is fun for a magazine, but it ain’t worth the price of admission in a working environment.

How can the answer to the state’s contention be satisfactory when the person that “allegedly owned it” is dead?

If anything, pairing ‘patrol rifle’ and ‘for your next mission’ would be a marketing tool to get a police officer to buy one, as some departments allow officers to use personally owned ones, so the department can save some money. All they do is make it meet certain criteria, the range folks verify those criteria, take a class, qualify and voila....you got you Patrol Rifle in your cop car.

Are you suggesting that,in the end,the only damage Remmington will suffer is their legal bills?

That's what the commenter was suggesting along with the possibility of the plaintiff being required to pay their legal fees.....

All I know is what I read in the funny papers, or in this case on gun boards that are frequented by very smart lawyers.

The High Road has a thread about this case here:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/supreme-court-to-weigh-taking-bellwether-case-against-gun-industry.858618/

And the relevant posting is this one:

The CT. Supreme Court's decision is that, "The plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims predicated on the theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by advertising and marketing the rifle in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner were not time barred."

"The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants unethically promoted their assault weapons for offensive, military style missions by publishing advertisements and distributing product catalogs that (1)promote the AR-15 as ‘‘the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are,’’ (2) depict soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles, (3) feature the slogan ‘‘[w]hen you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers,’’ superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag, (4) tout the ‘‘military proven performance’’ of firearms like the XM15-E2S, (5) promote civilian rifles as ‘‘the ultimate combat weapons system,’’ (6) invoke the unparalleled destructive power of their AR-15 rifles, (7) claim that the most elite branches of the United States military, including the United States Navy SEALs, the United States Army Green Berets and Army Rangers, and other special forces, have used the AR-15, and (8) depict a close-up of an AR-15 with the following slogan: ‘‘Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.’’

The CT. Supreme Court, explains the potential advertising liability of Remington under CT law as,

"The gravamen of a wrongful advertising claim, by contrast, is that an advertisement models or encourages illegal or unsafe behavior. In such instances, the immediate victims are just as likely to be third parties who are not customers, whether it be individuals who engage in inappropriate conduct inspired by the advertisements or the direct victims of that conduct. For example, when an especially racy sports car commercial disclaims, ‘‘professional driver, closed course, do not attempt this at home,’’ the perceived risk is not merely—or even primarily—that viewers will purchase that particular vehicle and drive it unsafely as a result of the commercial. Of at least equal concern is the possibility that noncustomer viewers will emulate the commercial when driving their own vehicles, violating motor vehicle laws, and possibly causing injury to themselves or others, including passengers or pedestrians."

Reading a bit more into the case, Remington appears ill-served by its lawyers in failing to address whether or not the CT law regarding advertising is unconstitutional content discrimination in that it does not appear to be narrowly tailored and not really within the strictures of deceptive trade practices. Thus, arguably, which I cannot find that Remington did so as I do not have access to their briefs, the CUTPA law and the CT decision and CUTPA as applied might violate the 1st Amendment rights of Remington. While commercial speech has traditionally been given lower protection, it has been within the confines of deceptive practices, not hyperbole. If the latter is the case, Captain Morgan rum is in trouble. The current court may have been more sympathetic to claims on this ground than the PLCAA. From my reading, Remington seemed to rely on the PLCAA as a magic shield at the trial court which agreed with it and the CT court pierced with their ruling.

In reading the CT Supreme Court opinion, I noted that the CT. Court relies extensively on FTC regulation of advertising which more or less makes it difficult for CT to claim independent state grounds regarding CUTPA's interpretation. If Remington's lawyers had been on top of their game, this is a major weakness of the CT Court's opinion that should have been addressed.

Thus, my prediction is that the CT Court ruling is more or less designed to allow discovery but that depending on what trial court does, may act against the plaintiffs if no gross idiocies expressing bloodthirsty motives are found in Remington/ad agency correspondence.

America’s robed mullahs ALERT! 666 ways to Sunday.

If a firearms manufacturer can be sued, simply for selling legal products, most manufacturers can be destroyed by lawsuits....

Maybe the silver lining in the dark cloud here is that if Remington loses, a renaissance in home manufacturing/3D printing will bloom, causing a decentralized manufacturing base that cannot be stopped.

Exactly, MileHi. It’s what I’ve been saying all along. This case has never been tried. It was thrown out by a Connecticut state court, then reinstated by the CT Supreme Court. I think what will happen is that when it does go to court, it will be found in favor of Remington, and probably not even go to the SC. The plaintiffs have to know they’d never win there.

I should have realized that.

I thought someone else bought them.

Thanks

Why?

A major money tree for lawyers knowing full well Remington will be found not libel for pulling the trigger and killing children. Cars will then be next, knives, clothes pins, ball and jacks, kites, and those dreaded paper cuts so the paper manufacturers will be destroyed.

It was thrown out by a Connecticut state court, then reinstated by the CT Supreme Court.

Didn't know that part, thanks.

"(3) To guarantee a citizen’s rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment [!!! emphasis added]. "

First, kudos to the Republican-controlled 109th Congress for acknowledging Congess's 14th Amendment (14A) power to strengthen rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, 2nd Amendment (2A) protections in this case!

Next, although PDJT is successfully nominating conservatives to SCOTUS (Winning!), it's not surprising that the remainder of the post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices didn't pull the Constitution's "supreme Law of the Land" card (6.2) in defense of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), 6.2 long a favorite excuse for unconstitutional Democratic and RINO expansion of the fed's powers imo.

"Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land [emphasis added]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In fact, note that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of section 1, had included 2A when he read Bill of Rights as examples of enumerated protections that 14A applies to the states.

John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See 2nd Amendment (Article II) about in middle of 2nd column.)

On the other hand, the congressional record also shows a notable concern about Congress's 14A powers by Bingham, indicating that unreasonably wide (my wording) interpretations of any of Congress's enumerated powers can unconstitutionally expand the federal government's powers.

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. [emphasis added] I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existence." - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)

Also, Justice Reed, one of the last of the FDR era, state sovereignty-respecting justices, had put it this way about judges balancing 10A-protected state powers with Congress's 14A powers.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.