Discussion in 'Firearms News and Views' started by Long_Hunter, Nov 12, 2019.
Attack...attack....attack...Never stop....and come from All directions......Attack!
And There's a succinct plan outline.
Some moron made a revoked man card for Adam Lanza and the pee brain in marketing didn't notice it. That's not the companies doing. It's one of the morons using their platform doing it. Could be any number of things; poor attempt at humor, dig at the company, or Buzzfeed did it to use in their article. Who knows.
The only thing the case can decide is whether the advertising was improper. That "Man card" stuff may be over the line but they would have to prove that the shooter even saw it.
The idiot, I refuse to use his name, was too busy playing video games in the basement, I doubt he had a subscription to Guns and Ammo.
Remington made a gun and sold it to a distributor.
Distributor sold it to a gun store.
Gun store sold it to a customer.
A man murders the customer, steals the gun, shoots up a school.
It's Remington's fault.
.......what are they going to get........Remington is barely in business.
Independence Institute research director David Kopel, who joined in an amicus brief on the case, said that the Connecticut ruling is a problem for both the First and Second Amendments. "The notion that it is illegal for firearms advertisers to use 'militaristic' themes is absurd," Kopel writes:
The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms has always had a relationship to military use of arms. For example, the first clause of the Second Amendment is about "a well regulated militia." Colonial assemblies, early state legislatures, and Congress in 1792 mandated that American citizens possess firearms and edged weapons. The federal and state arms mandates were not enacted by legislatures insistent that everyone go duckhunting. They were enacted so that the population would have combat weapons. If guns were not useful for interpersonal fighting, they would not be "arms," and would not be protected by the Second Amendment.
The case doesn't stand a chance but if some shenanigans happen and they win the precedent will destroy capitalism... Every manufacturer of anything is then liable for the end use of their products. All the joke comparisons listed above are legitimately on the table...
Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you got it!!! That's the point...to finish that "barely in business".
Yes! It's not about the money. It's about shutting down the gun business.
I dislike Lawyers
People are and have been doing that to McDonalds for years.
Hey, now... 98% of lawyers give the other 2% a bad name...
I do hope that Remington uses the discovery phase to uncover any coverup.
Someone Better Call Saul and get this thing tossed on a technicality.
Gotcha. I totally missed the reference as I don’t care to remember these POS’ names.
As tasteless as it may be, it was after the incident so still seems irrelevant to me.
FG’s CEO could’ve sent the shooter a hand written letter a week after the shooting explaining how deadly a bushmaster AR is in the wrong hands, and it still wouldn’t have any impact on what happened. Extreme example, I know.
I’m going to sue car manufacturers for drunk drivers.....and Jeffery Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Exactly what their plan is.
Eventually firearms manufacturing except for bespoke builds will end in the U.S. Between increasing labor costs, a saturated market, increasing restrictions, and litigation costs it will all be taken over by Turkey, India, and such places that have an established firearms manufacturing base and low labor costs that are beyond the reach of our legal craziness. Imagine the Small Arms Board (India) buying the Winchester name to apply to their commercial products for example go with Tata owning Jag and Landrover.
The world turned upside down indeed.
Once again we rely on 9 robed swamp members to tell us what the original documents say. As if we can’t actually read. Eventually jury nullification and USSC nullification will rule the day. If enough people ignore them, their power becomes zero.
Sounds like the scientology approach...
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
Man, I'm super glad so many sacrificed their principles in 2016 for the sake of the Supreme Court. Why, had Hillary won, the Second Amendment would be under attack on all sides.....
But fear not, friends.....the next most important and consequential election in your lifetime is less than a year away!
The voting numbers game is almost over so it won;t matter in the endgame.
Elect Trump they said,.... he'll nominate 2A friendly SCOTUS justices they said,...... LMAO
I don't want to be THAT guy, but I'm sure this is better than it would have been had it gone the other way.
I expect the prosecution's argument will be that this particular model is a "weapon of war" designed specifically to kill large numbers of humans quickly, and shouldn't be sold to civilians at all. It could come down to an interpretation of the 2A, and unless the defense can convince the judge or jury that the 2A is necessary or intended to repel government tyranny it may be a bad day for us. If they win on that basis other manufacturers are also fair game.
I think it's possible there is some corruption in the system.
p.s. Epstein didn't kill himself.
Neither did Antonin Scalia.
Somewhat off topic, but you reminded me of this. I saw this YT video and found her interesting and fairly easy to listen to: Watching far left professors discuss a second civil war is painful and necessary
A couple of the points she makes, which are relevant, is that the nation was supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. A key difference between the two is that while the vote split may be 51%/49% the republic is designed to protect the interests of the minority. Another point is that while it may have been divisively split, it was such that both "sides" would get their turn with things going back and forth. That is a dynamic that has been broken and it has become a game of ramming a policy agenda down people's throats.
I saw that video of the professors, it was very good.
JR, as I read it, "You are 100% Correct."
From the comments:
There are some inherent problems with the article, as in misstatements, or misunderstandings about PLACA.
“Sandy Hook parents and one survivor are suing Remington for “negligent marketing” under Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law, in direct violation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.”
– – In what way does the narrow path allowed by Connecticut’s SC violate PLACA? We only have the assertion that it does, and a link to another article that does not actually support the above claim.
“It does not get much more frivolous than suing suing Remington for “negligently marketing” the rifle…And the Supreme Court — including those wonderful pro-2A Trump appointees — is allowing that case to proceed.”
– – “Where’s the Beef?” PLACA provides an exception to its protections in the clause that allows legal action to proceed against gun manufacturers (or any one else involved in the industry) who break a law “applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm or ammunition], and there by causing the plaintiffs injuries.” Such claim has been made, and SCOTUS cannot arbitrarily decide that such a claim is frivolous on its face simply because PLACA is cited.
The upshot is that the application of the PLACA exception (or any other law regarding sales and advertising) isn’t “ripe” for SCOTUS review; no actual adjudication of the facts has issued. SCOTUS cannot review a decision of a lower court that has not yet happened (the actual application of the exceptions to PLACA in the instance at hand).
Is the SCOTUS denial of cert important? Yes. Is it more important than we think? Not actually. It is only one artifact in the course of a liability claim that has not yet reached a conclusion. Is the denial of cert a tactical/strategic move on the part of SCOTUS? Maybe. The NY transport case is pending, and that ruling could possibly affect a number of 2A cases currently in the courts. Thus, SCOTUS, rather than taking on several contemporary cases individually, maybe reserving its prerogative to use the NY case to settle the hash in a collection of cases active in the lower courts.
The precedent could be set that allows news organizations and groups like the SPLC to be sued and found liable when anyone goes out and kills people based on false stories or lists published.
We already know of at least one mad murder carried out based the SPLC listing everyone that disagrees with them as a hate group.
Many people commit suicide based on false defamatory reports that failed simple fact checks.
Firearms arw protected by the 2A.
Lies that kill are protected by 1A.
Lies have killed far more people than firearms.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Separate names with a comma.