Conn.suit against Remington

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AzRanger
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:33 am
Location: Northeast Ohio

Conn.suit against Remington

Post by AzRanger »

A question for you "lawyer" types out there. How can Conneticut's Supreme court allow a lawsuit to proceed against Remington when a law was passed and signed by George W. Bush that prevent this?

I just don't get it! Will this end up at SCOTUS? :?
God made man, Colt made them equal
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: Conn.suit against Remington

Post by JediSkipdogg »

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/70343992 ... ve-forward" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The 4-3 majority largely upheld arguments made by lawyers for Remington that the company is protected from suit in many instances. The court ruled, however, that Congress did not intend the PLCAA to preclude state law. Ultimately, the majority said, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
machinegunkelly
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:56 am
Location: redmencountry

Re: Conn.suit against Remington

Post by machinegunkelly »

Is my memory wrong ?
Were not AR's civilian weapons before the military decided to adapt them ?
MGK
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: Conn.suit against Remington

Post by WY_Not »

So by their "logic" we can sue the automakers for using racecars and such in their ads when we speed and crash? :roll:
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Conn.suit against Remington

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

machinegunkelly wrote:Is my memory wrong ?
Were not AR's civilian weapons before the military decided to adapt them ?
MGK
No, both the AR10 and AR15 were developed for military contracts. The AR10 to replace the M1 Garand and the AR15 to replace the M14. In modern speak we refer to M16 as the military version and AR15 as the semi-auto civilian version, but the AR-15 was the model originally submitted by ArmaLite to the Army for testing and which, after a few modifications, was renamed the M16A1 and ultimately replaced the M14.

For a really good dive into the background of the procurement program, see http://www.nodakspud.com/RetroAR15.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
AzRanger
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:33 am
Location: Northeast Ohio

Re: Conn.suit against Remington

Post by AzRanger »

JediSkipdogg wrote:https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/70343992 ... ve-forward
The 4-3 majority largely upheld arguments made by lawyers for Remington that the company is protected from suit in many instances. The court ruled, however, that Congress did not intend the PLCAA to preclude state law. Ultimately, the majority said, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."
Thanks! :wink:
God made man, Colt made them equal
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Conn.suit against Remington

Post by M-Quigley »

JediSkipdogg wrote:https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/70343992 ... ve-forward
The 4-3 majority largely upheld arguments made by lawyers for Remington that the company is protected from suit in many instances. The court ruled, however, that Congress did not intend the PLCAA to preclude state law. Ultimately, the majority said, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."
Regarding the bolded and underlined, does the comma in between the violent and criminal wordings is supposed to be mean AND or does it mean OR? The reason I ask is if it means and then Remington is probably in the clear, if the anti gunners have to prove the criminal part. If however it means violent then most gun advertisements would be illegal under that law. After all, if you advertise a handgun for concealed carry, say for example the Glock commercials with R Lee Ermey, you are (if you want to get technical) advertising a device that is intended to be used either to threaten or commit violence. Granted it's justified legal violence but it's still violence. All the people, cops or not, including the guy in Sutherland Springs who used an AR to shoot a mass murderer either threatened or committed a violent act. Heck, even hunting is technically a violent act, regardless of the fact it's legal.
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Conn.suit against Remington

Post by schmieg »

M-Quigley wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/70343992 ... ve-forward
The 4-3 majority largely upheld arguments made by lawyers for Remington that the company is protected from suit in many instances. The court ruled, however, that Congress did not intend the PLCAA to preclude state law. Ultimately, the majority said, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."
Regarding the bolded and underlined, does the comma in between the violent and criminal wordings is supposed to be mean AND or does it mean OR? The reason I ask is if it means and then Remington is probably in the clear, if the anti gunners have to prove the criminal part. If however it means violent then most gun advertisements would be illegal under that law. After all, if you advertise a handgun for concealed carry, say for example the Glock commercials with R Lee Ermey, you are (if you want to get technical) advertising a device that is intended to be used either to threaten or commit violence. Granted it's justified legal violence but it's still violence. All the people, cops or not, including the guy in Sutherland Springs who used an AR to shoot a mass murderer either threatened or committed a violent act. Heck, even hunting is technically a violent act, regardless of the fact it's legal.
The proper form when two adjectives are used to describe a noun is to put a comma between them. Common usage has dropped that so you get movie titles like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" which should be "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding" unless fat describes the Greek in which case the second comma would be deleted. Regardless, if the use were intended to be alternative, it should have read "violent or criminal."
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
Post Reply