More Subjects
Student’s name
Professor’s name
Subject code
University
Research Paper
The Remington case is making a history in making the arms manufacturers in the country responsible for the crimes being committed using their weapons. Hence, it remains a high-stake challenge for the biggest and largest gun manufacturers in the United States today. The lawsuit centers on the PLCAA, 2005, that provides protection to the manufacturers and retailers of weapons in civil lawsuits brought up by the victims of the crimes and violence. On the other side of the arguments, it revolves around CUPTA 1973, the state law which prohibits the firearms traders and suppliers from getting involved in truly irresponsible and unethical marketing practices. This research papers elaborates on the legal issues involved in this case along with the arguments that would be made by the plaintiffs and the defendant to support their side of the lawsuit.
Brief Facts
In 2012, 20-years-old Adam Lanza opened a military-style firearm in the Sandy Hook Elementary School. It killed 26 people including 20 children and 6 adults. Later, the shooter killed his mother and himself as well. The shooter’s mother legally owned the weapon. In 2014, the families of nine victims and an injured teacher filed a lawsuit against Remington Arms and other firearms distributors. It is the company that advertised the weapon, and later sold it to the civilians. They also named Riverview Gun Sales Inc. in the lawsuit as well. It is the gun shop from where the shooter purchased the military-style weapon, i.e., an AR-15 rifle. In 2016, the case was dismissed from the state court for being falling under the broad category of immunity provided to the weapon manufacturers and traders in the country under PLCAA 2005. However, the Supreme Court decision paved way for the case to continue. In March 0f 2018, Remington declared bankruptcy. Hence the case was stalled. However, in May of the same year, it announced that it had come out of bankruptcy.
Legal Issues Involved
The following legal issues are involved:
If the defendant can be sued under CUPTA 1973 for the manner in which it marketed the military-style weapon to the civilians.
If the defendant is responsible for the illegal use being made of the military-style gun they sold to civilians.
The extent to which the weapon manufactures and traders in the country enjoys immunity under the PLCAA 2005.
If the PLCAA 2005 precludes the CUPTA 1973.
If CUPTA 1973 is a predicate statute that applies the predicate exception to the general rules of PLCAA 2005.
Legal Arguments by Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs would make the following legal arguments:
The plaintiffs will argue that they must be given the opportunity to prove that the provisions of CUTPA, 1973 were violated by the defendant as it marketed a military-type weapon to civilians with particularly targeting the younger members of the society through product placement in the video games (Gupta et al., 1997).
The plaintiffs will further argue that the particular state law does not permit advertisements of any kind promoting or encouraging criminal, violent behaviors.
The plaintiffs will further argue that the predicate exception to the general rule of PLCAA 2005 is applicable in this case, i.e., a company knowingly violating a federal or state law with regard to unethical marketing and wrongful product placements (Sugarman, 2017).
The plaintiffs will further argue that CUPTA is a predicate statute, i.e., it is applicable to the preclude exceptions.
The plaintiffs will further argue that the PLCAA 2005 was not passed with the intention of precluding state law.
The plaintiffs will further argue that the PLCAA 2005 does provide protection to the weapon manufacturers and retailers in the country but it does not immune the firearms traders and suppliers involved in truly irresponsible and unethical marketing practices (Sugarman, 2017).
Legal Arguments by Defendant
The defendant would make the following legal arguments:
The defendant will argue that based on the rules and regulations provided in the PLCAA 2005, and the eventual protection shielding the manufacturers and retailers of weapons in the country under the umbrella of this particular law, the company is protected from civil suits in many instances.
The defendant will further argue that the subject matter of the lawsuit falls under the broad category of immunity offered to the gun manufacturers and traders in the country under the PLCAA 2005.
The defendant will further argue that the company had no means to assessing the shooter, and hence, by no means the company was able to have known the purpose for which the gun will be used.
The defendant will further argue that the U.S. Constitution provides the right to bear arms, and the shooter’s mother legally owned the weapon.
The defendant will further argue that the predicate exception of the general rules of the PLCAA 2005 is not applicable to this particular case because it is only applied if the predicate statute is particularly written in the context of weapons and ammunition.
The defendant will further argue that interpreting CUPTA 1973 outside the state will trigger the litigation that the PLCAA 2005 aimed at preventing (Feldman, 2019). Resultantly, the gunmakers and traders in the country will face massive expenses that would destroy a whole industry.
Conclusion
The Remington case is a high-stake challenge for the biggest and largest gun manufacturers in the country. An eventual ruling against the defendant would establish a legal precedent.
Works Cited
Gupta, Pola B., and Stephen J. Gould. "Consumers' perceptions of the ethics and acceptability of product placements in movies: Product category and individual differences." Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 19.1 (1997): 37-50.
Sugarman, Stephen D. "Torts and Guns." Journal of Tort Law 10.1 (2017): 3-22.
Feldman, Heidi Li. "Why the Latest Ruling in the Sandy Hook Shooting Litigation Matters." Harvard Law Review, Forthcoming (2019).
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024