The Best News
The Supremes denied hearing a case brought by the Sandy Hook families against Remington Arms.
The Supreme Court won’t stop a lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook victims’ families against Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school.
The Court decided not to take up an appeal by Remington. That marks a blow to the gun industry: Depending on the outcome of the case, it could open the door to gun violence victims’ families suing gun manufacturers for damages.
And, no, Little Bubba does not have anything to do with this case except for standing and applauding like all the rest of us.
One other thing while I’m at it. In Texas, I am required by law to carry liability insurance on my car. I think the same should be required of anyone owning rapid fire guns.
Or, any kind of gun.
1BarbinDC I just came here to say what you said.
2All firearms should be registered, owners/users licensed and insured and required to have & use gun safes and trigger locks.
Came to say what @BarbinDC said!
3I agree with the liability insurance concept. The more cars I have the more the insurance costs me and that should apply to guns as well.
I also would also like to change from conceal and carry to conspicuously display and carry. I think that those toting guns around should have to wear the blaze orange the same way hunters have to wear in the woods. If guns are for your protection, then with blaze orange on I know not to mess with you! I also know who to stay away from!
4I totally agree re: insurance for gun owners.
5The Best News indeed!
6Agree with BarbinDC & Malarkey.
I think gun owners should be licensed, just like drivers and guns should have liability insurance as well. I’m glad the Sandy Hook families are making progress!
7I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tells ya. THIS court refused to side with the gun industry? Even after Trump had his way with it?
Maybe there’s something to be said for a branch of government that doesn’t run for office and whose members get to stay in office forever after all.
I imagine states will have to make the decisions in re insurance. It’s time for 50 letter writing campaigns.
8Licensed, registered, insured and inspected. Will leave the details of “inspected” to the ladies of the WMDBS.
9I suggest you reword the headline here. The Supremes did not deny hearing the case brought by the families of Sandy Hook victims. They agreed to let it come forward. Or am I missing something?
10I wonder if insurance companies will start including a question on home owner’s/renter’s insurance asking if the applicant owns any fire arms, if so, how many, and what kind? Also, are they kept in a locking gun safe? If owning a fire extinguisher lessens my risk and can lower my insurance, it seems owning firearms could have the opposite effect.
11I’ve been way in favor roof such insurance for years. It could be an extra rider on hoe insurance,m just like the extra riders for the antiques Grandma left you.l
12IF they sue and win a case against gun makers, the fall out will be bad. I agree that the users should be registered and insured and tested and trained and guilty as heel when they abuse same. BUT the gun makers??? NO! why? because if I sell a car as is, and the owner now causes a collision, the victim can sue the owner, and by the inference of this stuff with blaming the gun MAKER, now the victim can now sue me and the eventual maker of the car. And me or the make did not cause the collision just as the gun maker did not cause the shooter to go crazy. I do think that all automatic or semi-auto guns should be illegal (and illegal for the militarized cops too) as there is no real need for them. I also think that conceal carry should be illegal, all carry should be exposed so I know who has the gun.
13Yes, excellent news, and, yes, on liability insurance!
14L. Long,
A car is not intentionally manufactured to cause a collision. That’s not the purpose for which anyone buys a vehicle. (OK, maybe a demolition derby, but I’m sure the participating drivers sign waivers.)
As Aretha Franklin might say if she were singing a response:
I-N-T-E-N-T
15Find out what its use should be.
L.Long, there’s a lot of wisdom in your words (just as in the calls for treating guns like cars for registration, insurance, licensing, etc.). I wish I knew more about the case; I’m a little afraid this conservative court may be planning to hear it to exonerate the gun manufacturers. Best thing going for Sandy Hook, I think, is that cars aren’t manufactured primarily for killing; guns are.
16If (as ammosexuals say) more guns make us safer, then why don’t insurance companies offer discounts to gun owners?
17#12…good point but the ways laws twist things who knows. And just as bad is #13 as they could be setting things up so gun makers are getting a safty net.
18#14…Also rePUKEians say more guns more safe…yet outlaw all guns from rePUKEian gatherings!! Hypocrisy!!!
With every right comes responsibility, and the greater the right, the greater the responsibility has to be.
Having the right to own something which empowers one to kill at a considerable distance is a pretty great right. It should therefore impose great responsibility.
Not merely the responsibility of using it properly, but– more importantly, NEVER LETTING IT FALL INTO UNWORTHY HANDS.
We have historical examples of this– King Arthur never lent Excalibur to someone else, but some mail order house gave a second-hand rifle to Lee Harvey Oswald.
So, let’s make every purchaser of a new gun a de facto ATF agent by letting him/her know this: “Your responsibility for the use of this weapon is non-transferable. You will be held accountable for its use as long as it is a recognizable weapon. If you sell, lend, give, pawn, lose or misplace it, you will still be responsible, even if it is used wrongly fifty years later. When you die, your estate will be held liable. To end this responsibility, you must destroy it.”
Since 80% of all homicides are committed with second-hand weapons, the death rate would drop considerably.
Gun shows would not need more regulation than they already have. Neither would private sales. And the first time an eighty-year-old grandma went to the slammer because of a gun she sold when she was 17, a lot of would-be buyers and first-time purchasers would start paying a lot closer attention.
19There seems to be some confusion by some commenters about what the Supremes decided. They decided not to hear the appeal from Remington. The case has already been tried and a verdict rendered, but Remington appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court, which means the verdict stands, and Remington loses.
20Thank you, Mah Fellow Murkuhn. I’ve been away from the computer all afternoon and just saw that my comments are hard to understand. I apologize. That’s exactly what the court said –
21