A minimum of four of the nine SCOTUS justices is required to grant a writ of certiorari.

If I may be so bold, the following are comments at the above link (with the author’s names after each)……

“We’re not supposed to know Lanza had to kill his own mother in order to access the key and locked cabinet where she stored the rifle. It’s a hidden fact only stupid people will not question because there’s an agenda to be pushed.” ….. Edward Kennedy’s Ghost

“Remington didn’t sell ANYTHING to him or his Mother. The gun dealer did, and was responsible for running any background checks.” ….. EWI3020

“This was the very first thing that crossed my mind as I read the article. Why is the manufacturer being singled out as the sole Defendant ? What about the gun dealer, if we want to truly follow the plaintiff’s logic ? What about the mother, who took measures to lock the gun, but apparently didn’t foresee the possibility that her own son would murder her to obtain the key ? The plaintiff’s logic dictates that she should have known her son would do anything up to and including murder to obtain the gun.” …..I Haz A Question

And to me, the most important aspect…..

“While I think SCOTUS demonstrates that they are worthless and continue to treat the second amendment as a second-class citizen (if not the red-headed step-child) of constitutionally protected rights, the language here is a bit sensationalized. SCOTUS merely denied cert to Remington’s appeal. They didn’t reject the appeal; they merely refused to hear it. Should SCOTUS have granted cert ? Obviously. But this is just par for the course for SCOTUS ignoring the lower courts running roughshod over federal law and court precedent where the second amendment is concerned. This one should be a slam-dunk; but the courts are worthless.” …..Chip Bennett

–and–

I disagree that this has little to do with the second amendment, when the basis of the first amendment claim (negligent entrustment) implies and assumes that the AR15 is inherently dangerous and a military firearm. Now, as a second amendment purist and absolutist, I understand that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect private ownership and use of the same arms with which we equip out military. But I have no confidence that SCOTUS will actually defend and uphold that intent. Further, allowing a decision to stand that asserts that a basic, semiautomatic carbine is “inherently dangerous” jeopardizes tens of millions of firearms, and the lawful, righteous, constitutionally protected right to own and use such firearms. Again, I do not trust SCOTUS as the bulwark to protect that right. …..Chip Bennett

…..a reply to Mr. Bennett:

“This is true. It doesn’t mean that if Remington loses they won”t be able to appeal the decision to SCOTUS, it just means that they’re {SCOTUS} not stepping in before the fact. When this is all done those poor families are going to owe Remington a lot of money in legal costs.” …..Gov. William J Le Petomane

My thoughts: I’m hoping like h*ll Gov. William J Le Petomane is right.

KLS–TASG

Based on what I know of this case, the Supreme Court should have agreed to hear it. From Remington Arms’ brief:

Respondents’ lawsuit is exactly the kind of case arising from a criminal’s misuse of a firearm that “may not be brought in any Federal or State court” under the PLCAA. 15 U.S.C. § 7902(a). Respondents use a general deceptive trade practices statute to implausibly claim that a firearms manufacturer’s advertising caused a criminal’s mass shooting. And that claim is even more implausible here, where the shooter (1) did not even purchase the gun, Pet. App. 9a-10a, and (2) had “severe and deteriorating internalized mental health problems.” As experts predicted, the ruling below is already being used as a roadmap to evade the PLCAA. This Court’s review is needed now to avoid costly litigation against the firearms industry that “may not be brought” in any court. 15 U.S.C. § 7902(a).

My understanding is that the litigation is still at a preliminary stage. A Connecticut superior court judge granted a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim, and the litigation went to the state Supreme Court from there, which allowed it to continue by a 4-3 vote. If that is correct, Remington Arms will have another chance to seek Supreme Court review. I hope it has more success then. I do not know why a vote to grant cert failed to find four justices in agreement.