The US Supreme Court Has recently taken a case in which the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook incident are suing the Remington Firearms Corporation for selling guns because they kill people.
The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.’s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker and promoter of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.
The court opted not to hear the gun-maker’s appeal, in a decision that was announced Tuesday morning. The justices did not include any comment about the case, Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, as they turned it away.
Remington had appealed to the highest federal court after the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the Sandy Hook lawsuit to proceed in March. In recent court filings, Remington says the case “presents a nationally important question” about U.S. gun laws — namely, how to interpret the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants broad immunity to gun-makers and dealers from prosecution over crimes committed with their products.
Remington manufactured the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that Adam Lanza used on Dec. 14, 2012, to kill 20 first-graders and six adults at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn. (source)
This case is going to be very interesting.
At the very least, it will certainly drive up weapon’s sales in the US because people will want to buy guns since they do not know if they will be able to buy them in the same quantity in the future, for if the gun company is ruled against, then it could mean the end of most arms sales in the US.
However, a ruling against Remington is unlikely simply due to the fact of profit reasons, as there are a lot of people who buy guns and to lose that market would be a major blow to their business. Likewise, if a ruling was to come against the company, it would almost certainly guarantee a 2020 Trump loss.
But this is not to say that a ruling of this kind would not happen. Consider that the US is changing, and as I have warned, gun rights are on their way out because the people who instituted them are disappearing by result of their own volition in addition to changing their personal opinions. This applies to much of the constitution, which is also disappearing because it represented a particular epoch and series of assumptions, which if they do not continue to be shared, necessarily have to change, for laws are written for people, not the other way around.
There are many possibilities as to what could happen with this. What we can say is that regardless, what does happen will be a result of processes began a long time ago, that are not going to be easily changed, and will have major effects for the future. The eventual disappearance of gun “rights” will open the way to “old world” style tyranny, as it has in every society where such has been applies.
Perhaps now is not a time to just “buy guns and stockpile ammo”, but to work on developing the next steps in modern weaponry or perhaps learning about the tools which all firearms need in order to function, how those are produced, and what can one individual do for himself. One cannot “win a war” against the government in any sense, and this is not the intention, but rather to recognize major changes that are taking place and to be able to respond to them appropriately.
The gun laws, or laws of any nation, come and go with time. While there is a time to “fight”, there also is a time to re-think for the future what should be done and to act on that. The story of history in many respects is the chase between the pursuer and the pursuee, which goes back and forth with both sides changing roles. One might regard this case, whatever the ruling is, as a future indication of a switching of these rules as it happens at times, and instead of trying to stop processes long put into place, rather to move with them and think about what could be done in the decades and centuries to come.