Remington getting sued??

[gh1950]

Interesting, my Google newsfeed reads something like "gun manufacturers dealt stunning blow by U.S. Supreme Court."

That's no where close to the significance of this case.

Here's where this case is. It is in the very preliminary stages. No evidence has been presented. The judicial system does not favor dismissing lawsuits that may have some merit. The courts prefer to have some evidence to help frame the issues.

Both the Connecticut Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court (and the trial court) will have another say on this case.

There are several legal principals here that the reports will gloss over. This case is a long way from over.



The plaintiffs have a very high standard to prove under the Connecticut law.

 

[300_whisper]

G gh1950 thats good to hear. Do courts take into account 2nd and 3rd effects of a decision?

 

[palmettomoon]

Which manufacturer has the most Billy Badass combat oriented advertising for MSRs? I admit I do not read much trade press or rags.

 

[gh1950]

G gh1950 thats good to hear. Do courts take into account 2nd and 3rd effects of a decision?

Not really.

An appellate court only decides issues presented "in the record" of lower court's actions. So that is all the evidence, pleadings and rulings of the parties and judges. IN THEORY the appellate court should not consider the consequences of it's decision beyond the issues raised in the appeal.

IN PRACTICE in the last couple of decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has moved away from this principal. Some of the justices get more involved with the "consequences" of their decisions than what is the actual law and the facts of the case.

Look at the pending decision of DACA.

Obama put it in place by executive fiat. What he did may or may not be illegal. But look past that, it stands to reason that an executive order by one president could be undone by another president. DACA doesn't "do" anything other than order the responsible law enforcement agencies to not enforce immigration law.

Trump set it aside. Lower appellate courts said he couldn't set it aside. and their reasoning was based upon the fact that it would affect too many people who had relied on it too long. Those courts recognized that DACA is not a "law" in which the affected persons might have vested rights, it was just too inconvenient to these non-citizens to do away with not enforcing current law.

This case was just argued before the Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs based much on their argument on how many people would be affected by doing away with DACA. In fact, the plaintiff's attorneys had a hard time answering the repeated question of why is what Trump proposes illegal?

So this is a case where at least the lower courts have considered the 2nd and 3d order of their decisions.