Judge Rules S&W Can Be Sued

[3855WIN]

The lawsuit claimed that the company used marketing tactics "that attracted impulsive young men with military complexes who were particularly likely to be attracted to the unique ability of AR-15 style weapons," according to the wire service.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414790718703480836

 

[Sytes]

Ridiculous.

 

[mevertsen]

What about the car he got there with? Google for researching it? All of the other supplies he used for the attack?

 

[FI460]

What about the car he got there with? Google for researching it? All of the other supplies he used for the attack?

I don't agree with it, but the distinction is how the products are marketed.

They'll argue that the tactiCool marketing by S&W had some impact. Doubt they can make that argument with Toyotathon commercials.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tobacco companies can be sued for marketing their product in a socially unconscionable manner. So the precedent has been set.

Articles like this will be used by the plaintiff.

How To Stand Out In The Competitive AR-15 Marketplace

The AR-15 is America's most popular rifle. But what kind of firearm marketing does it take to stand out in this highly competitive marketplace?

www.garrisoneverest.com

I don't know how a jury would take this case, but it would seem like the burden of proof would be pretty high in order to establish intent by the company to do anything other than sell the gun.

 

[blackbeard]

Just remember, people are held accountable for their actions.... unless it involves a gun then it's the guns fault.

 

[Curvebow]

Here in the Socialist republic of NYS a law has been passed allowing the DA or others to sue gun manufacturers for marketing, selling improperly (I haven't figured that one out yet) or selling unsafely. The bits that I've read about it leaves more questions than answers. Time will tell.....

With the former Remington Arms, now Rem Arms, coming off the sale (thanks to the buttholes at Cerberus) and now finally producing guns for a few months, this isn't good news. I'm sure that our emperor would really like them out of business or at least out of the state. Its sad as Remington was the longest lived firearms manufacturing company on the same ground in the history of the US. And maybe the longest lived manufacturer of any kind. 205 years....

 

[Duck-Slayer]

Our country is going the wrong direction!
Matt

 

[Irrelevant]

People being held accountable for their actions? That's a joke. It's always someone else's fault.

Hell we had a sitting president try start an insurrection without any ramifications... not sure how less accountable we can be as a country. Individual actions mean nothing. Why else would we have the 2nd more lawyers per capita (I thought it was the most, but apparently Israel has double the US count)?

Seems to me any decision on this case will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Tobacco companies can be sued for marketing their product in a socially unconscionable manner.

I think companies should be held liable for their products, when they don't function as advertised and people are harmed. Remington trigger would be a topical example.

If I was sitting in the Jury on this one I would be on the fence. I'm not sure if I agree that the comparison for big Tobacco is accurate. Cigarettes' were marketed for a long time as healthy, tobacco actively tried to hide information on cancer.

To my knowledge no gun company has said a gun we operated correctly can't kill someone?

I could see arguing that firearms companies were eliciting or possibly "suggesting" people use their guns to commit acts with their marketing if that's more what you're driving at?

Like car companies put "professional driver on closed course" on their adds so as not to get sued from people getting hurt trying to boondock Corollas.

 

[brushcreek]

nothing worse than a liberal idiot judge

 

[Sytes]

Seems to me any decision on this case will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court.

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?

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Here in the Socialist republic of NYS a law has been passed allowing the DA or others to sue gun manufacturers for marketing, selling improperly (I haven't figured that one out yet) or selling unsafely. The bits that I've read about it leaves more questions than answers. Time will tell.....

With the former Remington Arms, now Rem Arms, coming off the sale (thanks to the buttholes at Cerberus) and now finally producing guns for a few months, this isn't good news. I'm sure that our emperor would really like them out of business or at least out of the state. Its sad as Remington was the longest lived firearms manufacturing company on the same ground in the history of the US. And maybe the longest lived manufacturer of any kind. 205 years....

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

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think companies should be held liable for their products, when they don't function as advertised and people are harmed. Remington trigger would be a topical example.

If I was sitting in the Jury on this one I would be on the fence. I'm not sure if I agree that the comparison for big Tobacco is accurate. Cigarettes' were marketed for a long time as healthy, tobacco actively tried to hide information on cancer.

To my knowledge no gun company has said a gun we operated correctly can't kill someone?

I could see arguing that firearms companies were eliciting or possibly "suggesting" people use their guns to commit acts with their marketing if that's more what you're driving at?

Like car companies put "professional driver on closed course" on their adds so as not to get sued from people getting hurt trying to boondock Corollas.

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?

 

[VikingsGuy]

What about the car he got there with? Google for researching it? All of the other supplies he used for the attack?

Car companies already take flack for speed track type advertising - hence the now ubiquitous "closed track, professional driver, do not drive our vehicles like this otherwise" disclaimers. Maybe the tacti-cool ads will now have "even though our ad looks cool you are not a soldier, a navy seal or the second coming of Rambo, and your band of misfits aren't the second-coming of the founding fathers, and in no case should you shoot innocent fellow civilians"

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just remember, people are held accountable for their actions.... unless it involves a gun then it's the guns fault.

I think that's the point - a jury of peers will decide if S&W is accountable for their advertising. Seems like a tough haul to prove (see, video game litigation) but it is consistent with the first half of your comment.

 

[beginnerhunter]

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?

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.

 

[VikingsGuy]

selling improperly (I haven't figured that one out yet)

I am not saying I support, but I think they are following one of the lines of reasoning for going after oxy manufacturers - essentially that when manufacturers become aware that sales into a particular location or market exceed plausible demand that they need to look into it, not just increase the volume - for example, a small gun shop in a small town just outside of Chicago selling 100x typical amounts of handguns per month.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Our country is going the wrong direction!
Matt

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

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

Agreed, but it's the question that will become the overriding policy issue that comes from this.