This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1405315
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1405315
I foresee unlimited states rights to do whatever Justice Roberts approves and no rights whatsoever to what Justice Sotomayor finds reasonable.
7 Likes
I heard on NPR that the litigation succeeded because Remington is bankrupt, and the suit was basically against Remington’s insurance company.
8 Likes
I really don’t know why is there so much celebration in this “victory”, it was a settlement, Remington is bankrupt, has no willingness to fight and probably no means to pay either, basically they don’t give a shit anymore. It would be different had been if a court had ruled to the plaintiffs, although unlikely to hold on appeal.
I just want to know why that filthy piece of shit Alex Jones is still walking around and not living at the underpass, begging for money.
9 Likes
Pretty much. It was actually bought in pieces, 7 different companies now own different chunks of the brand and assets.
3 Likes
Because there’s been quite solid and long-standing laws in place regarding firearms manufacturers specifically (basically, you can’t sue them for the boomstick making pew-pew, since that’s what it’s designed to do. You could sue them if the boomstick didn’t make pew-pew, as that would be a defective product).
They found a loophole in the way that the Bushmaster was advertised, and, even though this means its never getting its day in court, they’ve at least proven that there’s a path to inflicting some financial pain on gun manufacturers, which may lead to other industry changes to avoid future problems.
6 Likes
Turns out that if you are good at begging for money you can have a very good living complete with executive jets and mansions… just listen to any Megachurch service and it’s nothing but singing and dancing and asking for money.
6 Likes
One point that I strongly disagree with in an otherwise very informative article.
“Although the Second Amendment undoubtedly imposes restrictions on the civil liability of gun manufacturers, the idea of holding them liable for carelessness is actually not so far-fetched.”
The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As a “strict constructionist”, please tell me where there is any mention of restriction of civil liability to gun manufacturers in the 2nd Amendment. The fact is the 2nd Amendment was never intended, nor until right wing hacks took over the Supreme Court, to give individuals rights to won guns. Rather, the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment as evidence by both its wording, “well regulated militia”, and writings about its formation and adoption, was to give states the right to have militias.
But like so much else, Heller springs from when the Supreme Court, as one of its former member’s Sandra Day O’Conner has copped to, the decision of the Court to be hacks instead of Justices in Bush v Gore.
O’Conner wrote that she herself decision in Bush v Gore was because she wanted to retire and wanted a Republican to name her replacement to keep a promise she made Reagan when he appointed her. That is knowing full well that the oath of her office and the constitution and her past rulings on similar issues required her to vote one way, her loyalty to the Republican Party caused her to vote another way.
When she did retire, she got an agreement from Bush to appoint a moderate. Most concerning to O’Conner was what she considered the radical Republican stance on guns. So concerned over what could happen in regard to gun violence, before agreeing to retire O’Conner made Bush promise O’Conner he would appoint a moderate who would not make a ruling that is Heller.
But like with Iraq, Bush lied and many have died and continue to die.
The point being, this issues with gun violence is not because of the 2nd Amendment but because of a Supreme Court that puts it loyalty to the Republican Party and what helps it keep and hold power over all else including the constitution and their oaths of office.
8 Likes
Yeah, not tracking at all where they brought 2A into that. There are certainly statutory provisions at play in any liability, but don’t see where they found a 2A comment to slip in there.
1 Like
“Limitations” would have been the better word choice than “restrictions,” but it’s well established that states cannot use their tort laws in ways that infringe on people’s constitutional rights. If Delaware passed a law creating a private cause of action with a $100 million penalty for any defendant who sold a firearm subsequently used in a crime, it would pretty clearly infringe on the right to keep and bear arms because it would force gun sellers out of business (as intended). In that example, the Second Amendment definitely imposes a limitation on civil liability.
5 Likes
It’s not his court anymore even if that’s what legal scholars refer to it. The court is now defined by the agenda of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
4 Likes
It should be noted that the settlement amount – $73 million – was the policy limits of Remington’s insurers. Given the bankruptcy, it was extremely unlikely that the plaintiffs could have collected any more from going to trial. But the evidence was still damning enough that the insurers were willing to cough up every last dollar they could be liable for rather than taking a chance on winning a lesser award at trial. That means they assessed that they had less risk with full policy payouts than letting Remington go to trial and possibly end up being liable to Remington for even more.
11 Likes
Yep. Remington’s “Time to stamp your Man Card” slogan was just a bit too “Joe Camel”.
5 Likes
I agree and disagree.
Before Heller, when did the Supreme Court hold that the 2nd Amendment gave individuals rights to own guns?
Again, we are discussing an amendment to the constitution that explicitly allows for “regulation”. In fact if we are going to add anything based on discussions about the amendment contemporaneous to its adoption, regulation is demanded.
So based on a right not in the 2nd Amendment but added by the Supreme Court under the facade of the 2nd Amendment, you are correct.
But then, under actions by very much the same Supreme Court, what Republican legislatures did in appointing electors opposite of electors the people chose, is also constitutional.
4 Likes
txlawyer, I accept your reasoning but note that conservatives are using all sorts of end runs around the Constitution with far less cogent legal arguments to justify them. Instead, they are relying on a conservative-stacked judiciary to engage in results-oriented jurisprudence, letting judges use their opinions to give weigh to all sorts of fallacies and half-truths.
My argument is that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why shouldn’t progressives or just regular plaintiffs with an otherwise legitimate grievance use liberal justices and jurisdictions to pressure malefactors like gun manufacturers who cross the line? After all, the words “well-regulated” are right there in the 2nd Amendment so why shouldn’t that include gun manufacturers?
Since Remington’s insurers will have to pay the settlement, that should pressure other manufacturers insurers to demand certain behaviors from their insureds in production and marketing, or pay much higher premiums to cover the potential costs. I doubt we’ll have much reduction in gun purchases or mass murders, but at least those reaping the profits will also share in the costs.
1 Like
Oh sure, you mean except for the plainly and obviously applicable case law from the United States Supreme Court, what else is there? 
I don’t care if you think SCOTUS got it wrong and Heller should be overruled some day (which it won’t be for many years, probably many decades). But that’s the version of the Second that we’ve got for now, so deal with it.
Because as SCOTUS stands for the foreseeable future, the most likely outcome you’re going to generate is more bad precedent. I applaud the Sandy Hook lawyers for achieving this settlement, but the next plaintiffs to try it against a non-bankrupt gun manufacturer, if they manage to win at trial, are going to end up getting poured out by SCOTUS deciding PLCAA actually does shield manufacturers from this kind of liability.
2 Likes
Prior to the settlement, some media reports suggested the case could unleash a flood of litigation or significantly change the landscape of lawsuits against the gun industry. However, as a legal scholar who has studied the history of lawsuits against the gun industry, I believe that’s unlikely.
Well, it’s still worth shooting for.
4 Likes
“Hmm. ‘Bush master.’ Sounds about right.”
https://octavianreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Cheney-Headshot-Expert-Page1.jpg
1 Like