Judge Rules S&W Can Be Sued

[Ben Lamb]

Seems like everybody agrees with that - the problem is the two sides disagree on in what way and how to solve it.

Or which direction is the wrong one.

 

[VikingsGuy]

9th circuit for the loss. SCOTUS for the win.

Ping pong match anyone? I believe, if SCOTUS heard the case, it would put this nonsense to rest. Fast Track...

Gun company sued because they typical firearm is Tacti-cool Black. Or appeals to the law abiding 2A crowd because it's Desert Tan cool looking?

The Roberts court places high emphasis on district court judgment and jury verdicts - I wouldn't be so quick to assume that if the verdict is based on the particular nature of the advertising inciting the behavior that this court will provide "the win". If it is based on guns being inherently dangerous & scary then yes, scotus will kick this one.

 

[VikingsGuy]

NY used to be a hot bed of quality firearm manufactures - Heritage is lost

The whole country used to be a hot bed of manufacturing everything - actually making things in the US lost.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Highly subjective. But I guess we're doing away with the pursuit of objectivity. Soon we'll find out if this world is better and more stable than the enlightened idealized one we're abandoning.

Tort law has been a mix of objective and subjective since before this country was founded - this is just one more small brick in a big wall of reasoning. Frankly, if the judge runs the trial right I see little chance of plaintiff success.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

The whole country used to be a hot bed of manufacturing everything - actually making things in the US lost.

Don't start that thread - it will take days to keep up

 

[Ben Lamb]

The whole country used to be a hot bed of manufacturing everything - actually making things in the US lost.

Shareholders uber alles.

 

[Sytes]

The Roberts court places high emphasis on district court judgment and jury verdicts - I wouldn't be so quick to assume that if the verdict is based on the particular nature of the advertising inciting the behavior that this court will provide "the win". If it is based on guns being inherently dangerous & scary then yes, scotus will kick this one.

For SCOTUS involvement, doesn't it need to be heard by a Circuit Court of Appeals first, aside from exceptional situations?

 

[IsThisHeaven?]

Tobacco was marketed to kids, which is what a lot of concern was about. I think the same argument could be made that manufacturers were promoting their product to a demographic that was in that extremist element, but I don't know how you can prove it. The broader question is do companies have a moral obligation to operate in a manner that benefits society rather than just their

Tobacco was marketed to kids, which is what a lot of concern was about. I think the same argument could be made that manufacturers were promoting their product to a demographic that was in that extremist element, but I don't know how you can prove it. The broader question is do companies have a moral obligation to operate in a manner that benefits society rather than just their profit margin?

Could a similar argument be made to pursue handgun manufacturers and whatever demographic they market too?

 

[beginnerhunter]

Tort law has been a mix of objective and subjective since before this country was founded - this is just one more small brick in a big wall of reasoning. Frankly, if the judge runs the trial right I see little chance of plaintiff success.

True, but objectivity was previously held as an ideal to strive for. That is no longer the case.

If I'm from the Northeast sitting on a jury and they show me some obnoxious gun ad that looks like RW propaganda, my lived truth will tell me this must be stopped (heck I'm steeped in gun/hunting culture and I also find those ads obnoxious).

I think they lose.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Could a similar argument be made to pursue handgun manufacturers and whatever demographic they market too?

Yes. I don't think the litigants distinguish between rifle and handgun, as they care more about shutting down the entire industry rather than individual manufacturers or stopping certain types of advertising.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Or which direction is the wrong one.

Screw it - they are all messed up - go at it alone

 

[IsThisHeaven?]

Yes. I don't think the litigants distinguish between rifle and handgun, as they care more about shutting down the entire industry rather than individual manufacturers or stopping certain types of advertising.

What could go wrong….

 

[VikingsGuy]

Shareholders uber alles.

And don't forget some ridiculous union overreach and excessive govt. regulation along the way.

 

[4ohSick]

True, but objectivity was previously held as an ideal to strive for. That is no longer the case.

If I'm from the Northeast sitting on a jury and they show me some obnoxious gun ad that looks like RW propaganda, my lived truth will tell me this must be stopped (heck I'm steeped in gun/hunting culture and I also find those ads obnoxious).

I think they lose.

Definition of objectivity

 

[VikingsGuy]

For SCOTUS involvement, doesn't it need to be heard by a Circuit Court of Appeals first, aside from exceptional situations?

Typically state torts (appears to be in state court at this point) would go trial court, then state appellate court, then state Supreme Court, then SCOTUS if there is a federal/constitutional angle the State Supreme Court botched - so unless the trial gets remanded to federal court the 9th circuit won't get a vote.

 

[KB_]

how about the marketing campaigns of drug company's? oh wait cant blame them for people abusing the use of drugs in this country. But S&W cant market their product that the American people have a direct right too?

What a joke

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

While I believe this is generally foolishness, and political posturing.

I do find it troubling this operator fanboy behavior where people spend thousands of dollars on kit to go out to the range and pretend to kill people. It seems a clear pivot by the commercial off the shelf gear supplier trying to expand their markets as demand from GWOT has waned, or the market has just been flooded. I understand the desire to be prepared and for self defense, but I think there is some weird fantasizing/glorification of what is a real serious/brutal/necessary skill.

 

[4ohSick]

how about the marketing campaigns of drug company's? oh wait cant blame them for people abusing the use of drugs in this country. But S&W cant market their product that the American people have a direct right too?

What a joke

Peak your head out from under the rock every now and then...

Purdue Pharma to plead guilty in $8bn opioid settlement

The deal with the US Department of Justice settles some of the most serious claims against the OxyContin-maker.

www.bbc.com

 

[VikingsGuy]

True, but objectivity was previously held as an ideal to strive for. That is no longer the case.

If I'm from the Northeast sitting on a jury and they show me some obnoxious gun ad that looks like RW propaganda, my lived truth will tell me this must be stopped (heck I'm steeped in gun/hunting culture and I also find those ads obnoxious).

I think they lose.

For hundreds of years tort law "objectivity" has been wrapped into this sense of "the reasonable person". What would the reasonable person do, what would the reasonable person think, what precautions would a reasonable undertake, what would a reasonable person foresee, etc etc. The jury of peers then has to decide what is "reasonable" given the presented facts. Each juror does (and always has) to some extent insert a bit of their subjective thinking into their answer to that question but they are supposed to stick to the question. The decisions of many juries over time essentially defines the "objective standard" for that issue in that region.

As citizens' views change over time or vary by location and thereby so does the reasonable and objective standard. There is no chiseled stone of objective tort law - and there never has been for its 400+ year history. There has been no systematic move in tort law away from objectivity towards subjectivity. This is just a perception caused by a lack of acknowledgment that the standards of behavior of a "reasonable person" change over time and vary by community.

Where congress feels these changes or variances are harmful to interstate commerce they may interject with statute. Similarly, the courts may interject constitutional protections as well. But that tends to happen later in the process.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yes. I don't think the litigants distinguish between rifle and handgun, as they care more about shutting down the entire industry rather than individual manufacturers or stopping certain types of advertising.

You are right about their intent - I really hate "legislation by tort"!