Farewell, personal responsibility. You had a good run:
BREAKING: Connecticut Supreme Court rules gun maker Remington can be sued over Sandy Hook mass shooting, AP reports.
— justin jouvenal (@jjouvenal) March 14, 2019
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a top manufacturer of AR-15 rifles can be sued over the Sandy Hook massacre, allowing victims' lawsuit to move forward https://t.co/tpkmVn3k4o
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) March 14, 2019
Did the Connecticut Supreme Court consult with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for this case?
Absurd.
— JWF (@JammieWF) March 14, 2019
Thats such a ridiculous ruling
— varyar (@varyarpol) March 14, 2019
A waste of time and money.
— rach (@MsBHaven200) March 14, 2019
There is no logic behind this decision.
— Carson Cook (@crsn891) March 14, 2019
That is an asinine decision. Makes 0 sense
— CaPtAiN ChAoS (@UF_TiKi) March 14, 2019
Unless of course, the goal is to punish gun manufacturers.
Ridiculous. Was any gun defective? Did Remington sell any gun involved illegally to anyone? Or is this really just another attack on the Second Amendment from a liberal court?
— Bob (@Bobsquestions) March 14, 2019
The latter. Definitely the latter.
This is silly and I hate guns
— JJ (@Musk_Oxen) March 14, 2019
A solid, three-minute fart noise. https://t.co/XceiN8PSdF
— L. Ron Buttload (@IButtload) March 14, 2019
More:
Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.
The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.
Remington has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can’t be sued under the federal law.
The majority of the high court agreed with most of the lower court’s ruling and dismissed most of the lawsuit’s allegations, but allowed a wrongful marketing claim to proceed.
“The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.
OK, now that we’ve read that … the decision is most definitely still stupid.
Characterizing this as “marketing-based” claim is creative judicial nonsense.
— Bob (@Bobsquestions) March 14, 2019
Yeah, well, something tells us this case isn’t closed just yet.
Supreme Court, here we come? https://t.co/Q039iccQDp
— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) March 14, 2019
Headed for reversal. enjoy the headline.
— Pouncing Coder Brad (@bradcundiff) March 14, 2019
I will take "Rulings that will be overturned by SCOTUS, if not a federal appeals court, for $200" https://t.co/EDcNfKWvHk
— I Like Dogs (@NathanWurtzel) March 14, 2019
We sincerely hope so.
Did they grow legs and arms and kill on their own? That was horrific but this is ridiculous. Will be overturned and the virtue signaling by the CSC will be for naught
— Yo no soy genizaro (@ODhonnabhain) March 14, 2019
