https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/families-of-sandy-hook-shooting-victims-can-sue-gunmaker-remington-over-2012-attack-court-says/2019/03/14/4222b1ec-4671-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?noredirect=onsee, that's the kind of shit that rubs me the wrong way and has made me warm to conservative jurisprudence over the years.
I went from loathing Scalia to just watching time and time again the utter bullshit that activists in black robes can pull
Prosecuting Remington for its
advertising tactic of vaguely militaristic messaging like "its good enough for professionals", and arguing this creates liability for a mass killing carried out by some gunman- is utterly insane
Its like if you prosecuted Columbia Pictures executives on first degree murder charges for the death of James Brady in 2014. At least in that case, we know John Hinckley Jr actually was obsessed with Taxi Driver- but nobody in this case has ever established any link between Remington's marketing and Adam Lanza's gun preference as far as I know. Even more insane, the gun wasn't bought by Adam Lanza, it was bought by his mother. And there's already an explicit blanket protection against suing gun manufacturers / distributors as liable for other people's criminal actions when using a gun as designed, and they're trying to slip this case in through a narrow exception that allows gun shops to be sued for selling to an obviously dangerous person. A marketing tagline is as far removed from negative entrustment as jumping in a bouncy castle is from a moon landing.
These are their actual arguments;
Quote
“Remington may have never known Adam Lanza but they had been courting him for years,” Koskoff said. “It wasn’t just that [Remington] marketed the weapon looking for people with characteristics of Adam Lanza but that Adam Lanza heard the message. He idolized the military and wanted to be an Army Ranger and Remington marketed the AR-15 as the weapon used by the Army Rangers.”
...
“Furthermore, they actively market the weapons to unstable individuals, take for instance their advertisement “consider your Man Card reissued. What could be more negligent than that?”
So the printing of this advertisement is literally an act of murder:
Never mind that it was actually sold to a woman. And that they have no connection between Lanza and Remington's advertising beyond "he wanted to join the rangers". And Remington never specifically advertised as a weapon of the rangers like he claimed, just generic taglines like "Military proven performance". So even the extremely tenuous ladder they're trying to build is missing all its steps. And even if they
could establish that, it still doesn't even come anywhere remotely close to a reasonable claim of liability in a sane world. Its utterly preposterous.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.