Scotus -oh dear, Remington

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/supreme-court-sandy-hook-shooting-lawsuit-069826

Guess the new court isn't our saviors. Of course, this is hot off the presses. But the suit goes on!

[blues]

That is pathetic and unjust.

[LittleLebowski]

I don't understand this one.

[Moylan]

3D chess, I expect. Or however many dimensions we're supposed to be up to now. It's like string theory at this point, ain't it?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Don't want to go all Chicken Little here but it would seem that:

1. OrangeManBad is the savior as he appointed progun justices isn't working out. Can't get 4 progun to take the case?
2. This may launch many other suits based on the Conn. case - tying up gun industry resources.
3. What does this mean about other progun cases that are supposed to save us at SCOTUS?

Load your weapons with cognitive dissonance and selective information processing and let the discussion wars begin.

The premise is that the advertising promotes aggressive ideation leading the psychologically vulnerable to commit these acts of violence. That premise is controversial in the literature. It will put a tamper on all the 'kill em dead', ultimate man stopper advertising in the gun industry.

[wvincent]

HUH? Not understanding this at all.
Are the opinions available somewhere?

[TAZ]

I don't understand this one.

I’m in the same boat, but the article claims that some exemption in the law is what is allowing the suit to go forward. Of course no link to said law segment or ruling is offered.

Does this mean we can now start suing GM for teenagers driving muscle cars and getting into accidents?

So if the advertising and product placement into video games is an issue, why isn’t the video game a target as well?

[0ddl0t]

I’m in the same boat, but the article claims that some exemption in the law is what is allowing the suit to go forward. Of course no link to said law segment or ruling is offered.

(A) In general The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include— (i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18 , or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted; (ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se; (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including— (I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or (II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18 ; (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; (v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or (vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26.


Does this mean we can now start suing GM for teenagers driving muscle cars and getting into accidents?
We always could. Why do you think those commercials are loaded with disclaimers about professional drivers on closed courses?


So if the advertising and product placement into video games is an issue, why isn’t the video game a target as well?
Because the game doesn't fit the preconceived blame of these activists.

[Sero Sed Serio]

HUH? Not understanding this at all.
Are the opinions available somewhere?

There won’t be a SCOTUS opinion as it’s a denial of cert. Instead of affirming the CT court opinion, SCOTUS is declining to hear the case, which means the lower court’s ruling stands, but is only controlling for CT. It can be persuasive in other jurisdictions, but they aren’t obligated to follow it. If another jurisdiction rules differently, that increases the likelihood that SCOTUS may address the issue later due to conflicting interpretations of the law.

Link to the CT Supreme Court opinion:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf

[TDA]

It's noteworthy how the AP wire story seems to be intentionally worded to give the impression that Remington lost a case after argument in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court didn't do anything except decline the petition for Cert. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111219zor_db8e.pdf) which can happen for a variety of reasons, but does not include an explanation.

[TDA]

I’m in the same boat, but the article claims that some exemption in the law is what is allowing the suit to go forward. Of course no link to said law segment or ruling is offered.

Does this mean we can now start suing GM for teenagers driving muscle cars and getting into accidents?

So if the advertising and product placement into video games is an issue, why isn’t the video game a target as well?

Because this is results oriented jurisprudence in a politically motivated case against a designated target?

[wvincent]

It's noteworthy how the AP wire story seems to be intentionally worded to give the impression that Remington lost a case after argument in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court didn't do anything except decline the petition for Cert. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111219zor_db8e.pdf) which can happen for a variety of reasons, but does not include an explanation.

Yes, noteworthy indeed.
Trying to create a false narrative. Who would have thought?

[Totem Polar]

Yes, noteworthy indeed.
Trying to create a false narrative. Who would have thought?

[blues]

If I were LL, I'd be a little concerned about being hauled before the courts for the buying frenzies he engenders. Are you listening, LL! May be time to flee to a country with no extradition treaty...;)

[Borderland]

If I were LL, I'd be a little concerned about being hauled before the courts for the buying frenzies he engenders. Are you listening, LL! May be time to flee to a country with no extradition treaty...;)

They would arrest him at the airport with all that cash I suspect.:D

[RoyGBiv]

Is a Cert vote public record? Do we know who voted against?

[JohnO]

I don't understand this one.

Perhaps GM and all auto makers along with Budweiser and the rest of the spirit manufacturers need to pucker up because if this flies, Holy Crap!

[Hambo]

Is a Cert vote public record? Do we know who voted against?

I haven't found anything except a list of denied cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111219zor_db8e.pdf

[the Schwartz]

There won’t be a SCOTUS opinion as it’s a denial of cert. Instead of affirming the CT court opinion, SCOTUS is declining to hear the case, which means the lower court’s ruling stands, but is only controlling for CT. It can be persuasive in other jurisdictions, but they aren’t obligated to follow it. If another jurisdiction rules differently, that increases the likelihood that SCOTUS may address the issue later due to conflicting interpretations of the law.

Link to the CT Supreme Court opinion:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf

I believe that I see the possible motive for a denial of cert in that SCOTUS might see precedent (namely, Heller, Heller ll and MacDonald) working against plaintiffs' liability theories—


"The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users."

And that this language contained later in the body of the denial—


1. The trial court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs did not plead a legally sufficient cause of action based on negligent entrustment under this state’s common law and, therefore, properly struck the plaintiffs’ claims predicated on that legal theory: the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants had any reason to expect that L’s mother, the direct purchaser of the rifle, was likely to use the rifle in an unsafe manner or in a manner that would involve an unreasonable risk of physical harm; moreover, this court declined the plaintiffs’ invitation to expand the common-law doctrine of negligent entrustment to allow such a cause of action to proceed on a theory that it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendants that, following the initial entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality, such as the rifle in question, that instrumentality would come into the possession of someone like L, who would use it in an unsafe manner, and, in any event, it was unnecessary to decide whether,in the present case, a cause of action for negligent entrustment could proceed under such a theory because the plaintiffs did not allege that any of the defendants possessed any knowledge or had any specific reason to believe either that L’s mother would share the rifle with L or that L was especially likely to operate it unsafely or illegally; furthermore,to the extent that the plaintiffs were seeking to pursue their negligent entrustment claim on the theory that any commercial sale of assault weapons to civilian users constitutes negligent entrustment because the societal costs of such sales outweigh the perceived benefits, this court followed the lead of other courts in rejecting that theory.


—might be relied upon in future proceedings as the nail in that particular coffin.

[Ed L]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/supreme-court-sandy-hook-shooting-lawsuit-069826

Guess the new court isn't our saviors. Of course, this is hot off the presses. But the suit goes on!

Yeah, it's really too bad that Hillary did not get elected. Because she would have been so much more pro-gun than Trump, and would have certainly elected more pro-gun judges.

[blues]

Yeah, it's really too bad that Hillary did not get elected. Because she would have been so much more pro-gun than Trump, and would have certainly elected more pro-gun judges.

Her recent suicides have taken on an alternative to firearms theme. You'd think she, of all people, would see the good in ensuring the availability of firearms.


/s

[whomever]

I've never understood the 'sue 'em into oblivion' strategy.

Suppose it succeeds beyond their wildest imaginations - Remington, Ruger, S&W, Marlin, Savage, and every other large gun maker is sued into oblivion, their machinery is melted for scrap, their factories are razed and salt sown into the ground.

Will that lead to the long sought gun free utopia, where gangbangers revert to switchblades? I don't think so - I'd just expect gun manufacturing to continue with much smaller transient companies, in the style of Jennings/Bryco/Jimenez, with perhaps some smuggled and black market guns on the side.

It would suck for people who like high quality guns, but it isn't going to affect misuse of guns.

[Poconnor]

Does this mean I could sue Hollywood and rap music for promoting the criminal misuse of firearms? I think they have a lot more money than Remington

[blues]

And what about all the endless video games?

[OlongJohnson]

I've never understood the 'sue 'em into oblivion' strategy.

Suppose it succeeds beyond their wildest imaginations - Remington, Ruger, S&W, Marlin, Savage, and every other large gun maker is sued into oblivion, their machinery is melted for scrap, their factories are razed and salt sown into the ground.

Will that lead to the long sought gun free utopia, where gangbangers revert to switchblades? I don't think so - I'd just expect gun manufacturing to continue with much smaller transient companies, in the style of Jennings/Bryco/Jimenez, with perhaps some smuggled and black market guns on the side.

It would suck for people who like high quality guns, but it isn't going to affect misuse of guns.

It's not about the guns. It's not about misuse of guns. It's not about gun control, it's about mind control: they are fighting a culture war, and they are fighting it on a generational timescale. Lawfare is just one weapon. They frankly don't care about violent crime and they don't care about prohibited persons having guns. Prohibited persons aren't likely to vote against them in a future election, so they don't matter.

[Hambo]

Yeah, it's really too bad that Hillary did not get elected. Because she would have been so much more pro-gun than Trump, and would have certainly elected more pro-gun judges.

That's ancient fucking history at this point. We've got real fights going on at the state level, and this denial doesn't help us.

[Ed L]

Don't want to go all Chicken Little here but it would seem that:

1. OrangeManBad is the savior as he appointed progun justices isn't working out. Can't get 4 progun to take the case?
2. This may launch many other suits based on the Conn. case - tying up gun industry resources.
3. What does this mean about other progun cases that are supposed to save us at SCOTUS?

Load your weapons with cognitive dissonance and selective information processing and let the discussion wars begin.

The premise is that the advertising promotes aggressive ideation leading the psychologically vulnerable to commit these acts of violence. That premise is controversial in the literature. It will put a tamper on all the 'kill em dead', ultimate man stopper advertising in the gun industry.

Glenn, I am tired of your gloating posts every time something does not go well for gunowners and about Trump not being a pro-gun savior. I don't think anyone thought he was an ideal candidate or a pro-gun saviour; only that he was better than the alternative and who she would have appointed.

I am sure we would have done much better with Hillary as president and her supreme court justices.

[Ed L]

That's ancient fucking history at this point. We've got real fights going on at the state level, and this denial doesn't help us.

I am not in denial that we have major problems at state levels. I am responded to a specific post about Trump and his supreme court choices not saving us.

[BillSWPA]

The Supreme Court accepts only a small percentage of petitions for certiorari. They typically accept only those which require a decision on an important principle of constitutional law. Reading too much into a denial is completely incorrect, and reads way too much into this action.

At this point, all we have is the allegations of each side. The plaintiffs have alleged facts which, if true, may fall within an exception to the federal statute. It may be that the Supreme Court wants to see how the evidence plays out in the lower courts before acting on it, giving it a more solid set of facts on which to base a decision. Because of the great weight that Supreme Court cases carry, they try to decide as little as possible in order to resolve the case before it.

I find it amazing that the same people who are quick to criticize Trump and Republicans for the occasional shortcoming are often the same ones who are willing to excuse far greater shortcomings among liberals and Democrats.

[TheNewbie]

What moron looks to any politician as a savior?

What moron cannot understand the lesser of two evils?

What moron cannot understand you don’t fix things overnight?


I look for Trump to stop the left, not to make the USA perfect. Unfortunately people are so clueless they either don’t understand how big of a threat the left is, or people cannot get past their own “I’m so wonderful” self image and support an imperfect fighter against the left.

[Hambo]

I am not in denial that we have major problems at state levels. I am responded to a specific post about Trump and his supreme court choices not saving us.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm tired of hearing it said as if it matters today. It doesn't. We've got Trump's appointees, and anyone who thinks they will cherry pick 2A cases doesn't have the faintest grasp of the law or how few cases even make it before the court.

[GardoneVT]

Last I checked, the SCOTUS is a separate branch from the Executive. As such, Trump has no direct bearing on this case.
I’m no fan of the man, but Donald J Trump doesn’t have the authority , mandate or capability of countering every anti-gun law in the country.

Frankly, their sorry product quality of late is enough reason to sue them out of business.

[Ed L]

Last I checked, the SCOTUS is a separate branch from the Executive. As such, Trump has no direct bearing on this case.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that SCOTUS is the same branch as the executive. But only that the president can appoint supreme court justices and they can indeed make a difference in cases that comes up before SCOTUS.

However, Some people act as though SCOTUS has the ability to wave a magic wand and strike down laws before the ink is dry on them, or the ability to dismiss any lawsuit in progress.


I’m no fan of the man, but Donald J Trump doesn’t have the authority , mandate or capability of countering every anti-gun law in the country.


On that I think we can agree.

[Borderland]

Does this mean my 870 Wingmaster that I purchased new 1970 just went up in price?

I know that's pretty shallow but Remington is dead to me. Has been for a very long time.

[Borderland]

Her recent suicides have taken on an alternative to firearms theme. You'd think she, of all people, would see the good in ensuring the availability of firearms.


/s

Not really her style.

[Borderland]

Does this mean we can now start suing GM for teenagers driving muscle cars and getting into accidents?

Hell yeah. You might as well get a piece of the action before they go under......again.

[Savage Hands]

Why so smug Glen?

[SecondsCount]

Guys (& gals)-

The political infighting really needs to stop. I'm not here to tell you what to do with your lives but I think we are all here because we like guns. Taking virtual shots at each other on the Internet is pretty immature at this point in time. The reason that the left is winning at this game is that they are dividing us.

I think it would be more beneficial to discuss how we are going to fight for our cause than against each other, or what political affiliation we have.

The NRA is sucking wind, New York, Jersey, and California fell a long time ago and the recent victims are Florida, Colorado, and now Virginia.

How are we going to stop losing ground to those that are against freedom and the right to defend ourselves?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don’t gloat. I didn’t vote for HRC. I had hopes Trunp would not turn out as he did. One defense people used to excuse his behavior is that his justices would be strong on gun issues. If this turns out not to be true, there is no reason to excuse him. You may vote for him again as the lesser of two evils or because you support his actions. That’s your choice. However, I’m not going to praise him. I don’t care if you don’t like my lack of enthusiasm for a moral failure.

Not being a member of group think is floating or being smug? Bull, I want pro RKBA results. If this doesn’t happen, where will progress be made?

[Ed L]

Glenn, your posts like the ones I criticized are almost patronizing to the people here. Most of us view Trump and his court appointments as the lesser of two evils and far from ideal; though we are glad the other side did not win because it would have been far worse.

What do these posts of yours sound like?


Guess the new court isn't our saviors. Of course, this is hot off the presses. But the suit goes on!



Don't want to go all Chicken Little here but it would seem that:

1. OrangeManBad is the savior as he appointed progun justices isn't working out. Can't get 4 progun to take the case?


Sadly, this overshadows some of your other points on the issues which I feel have a great deal of validity:


Don't want to go all Chicken Little here but it would seem that:

2. This may launch many other suits based on the Conn. case - tying up gun industry resources.

The premise is that the advertising promotes aggressive ideation leading the psychologically vulnerable to commit these acts of violence. That premise is controversial in the literature. It will put a tamper on all the 'kill em dead', ultimate man stopper advertising in the gun industry.

The angle of the law suit is hokey. The whole "wrongful marketing", that is the way Remington advertised the AR-15 style rifle.

It would open up violent movies and videogames to being sued for the influence they supposedly had on someone. Same with some books. Someone goes crazy with a sword and has been proven to have seen Game of Thrones--sue HBO, as well as the actors.

Car advertising that shows speed and handling could be blamed for car deaths

Bars could be sued for having happy hours and dollar beer nights for alcoholism.

[JRB]

Glenn, your posts like the ones I criticized are almost patronizing to the people here. Most of us view Trump and his court appointments as the lesser of two evils and far from ideal; though we are glad the other side did not win because it would have been far worse.



This, exactly.

I'm especially tired of the sanctimonious, smarmy back-handed bullshit like 'Orange Overlord'. Anyone that uses language like that I tend to dismiss as a valid or intelligent person the same way I ignored people that couldn't help but refer to our previous administration with garbage like 'Odumbo'.

If anyone fancies themselves an intelligent invidual, they can criticize the administration, policies, behaviors, tweets, etc without resorting to middle school bullshit. There's PLENTY that our current POTUS has done that worthy of criticism that emphatically DO NOT need exaggeration.

[Trukinjp13]

I am asking a question here. Not saying this is necessarily my thoughts.

What does suing the company have to do with the constitution or the 2nd amendment specifically? McDonald’s got sued over hot coffee along with millions of other pointless lawsuits? Maybe the scotus determined that this did not effect individuals rights right to bear arms. They pass on a lot of things we have no clue about. And also state laws are not necessarily federal either. Each state does have their own specific set of laws. So maybe they also figured this is a internal issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrm]

I am asking a question here. Not saying this is necessarily my thoughts.

What does suing the company have to do with the constitution or the 2nd amendment specifically? McDonald’s got sued over hot coffee along with millions of other pointless lawsuits? Maybe the scotus determined that this did not effect individuals rights right to bear arms. They pass on a lot of things we have no clue about. And also state laws are not necessarily federal either. Each state does have their own specific set of laws. So maybe they also figured this is a internal issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Firearm manufacturers have extra protection against lawsuits under federal law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

I don’t want to speak for others but I think the issue is that this law is not being deemed to protect against this suit. There is no such law related to coffee to my knowledge and this federal law would preempt the state law if it does apply. So it’s tangentially related to the second amendment.

[GardoneVT]

I don’t gloat. I didn’t vote for HRC. I had hopes Trunp would not turn out as he did. One defense people used to excuse his behavior is that his justices would be strong on gun issues. If this turns out not to be true, there is no reason to excuse him. You may vote for him again as the lesser of two evils or because you support his actions. That’s your choice. However, I’m not going to praise him. I don’t care if you don’t like my lack of enthusiasm for a moral failure.

Not being a member of group think is floating or being smug? Bull, I want pro RKBA results. If this doesn’t happen, where will progress be made?

I don’t see group think in supporting Trump. I see pragmatism. For what it’s worth, I think Clinton would be equally as bad as Trump. The headline specifics would be different- but the corruption and scandals would be identical. You don’t get to be POTUS from selling flowers.

Insofar as high hopes go, some here gave Trump a little too much credit. Some hoped for an RKBA savior and he’s not that, as the bumpstock decision clearly proves. Be it as that may, I don’t have the right to lecture anyone with an “I Told Ya So” speech. Attacking Trump on cases he has no involvement in is counterproductive and intellectually dishonest. Like this lawsuit with Remington- what precisely can Trump do? It’s a state level lawsuit that’s been rejected for SCOTUS review. It’s outside his sandbox.

[Trukinjp13]

Firearm manufacturers have extra protection against lawsuits under federal law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

I don’t want to speak for others but I think the issue is that this law is not being deemed to protect against this suit. There is no such law related to coffee to my knowledge and this federal law would preempt the state law if it does apply. So it’s tangentially related to the second amendment.

I’m pretty sure that law states they can be held liable. I’m not trying to argue against you here. I am glad you sent the link to that! Too much distraction going on in here. That was useful information.

This ain’t Trumps fault.
Clinton would have been far worse
Epstein did not kill himself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

I’m pretty sure that law states they can be held liable. I’m not trying to argue against you here. I am glad you sent the link to that! Too much distraction going on in here. That was useful information.

This ain’t Trumps fault.
Clinton would have been far worse
Epstein did not kill himself

I see what you didn't do there.

[0ddl0t]

Firearm manufacturers have extra protection against lawsuits under federal law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

But the PLCAA does not protect against claims alleging the advertising of a firearm was a cause of its criminal use. SCOTUS does not have to agree with the plaintiff's assertion that Bushmaster's "forces of opposition bow down" ad campaign was a contributing cause of Sandy Hook - SCOTUS need only recognize that plaintiffs have the right to make that argument in court.

The PLCAA does not give as much protection as many thought and the conservative justices honored the law, not their politics, in letting the state court ruling stand.

[BillSWPA]

But the PLCAA does not protect against claims alleging the advertising of a firearm was a cause of its criminal use. SCOTUS does not have to agree with the plaintiff's assertion that Bushmaster's "forces of opposition bow down" ad campaign was a contributing cause of Sandy Hook - SCOTUS need only recognize that plaintiffs have the right to make that argument in court.

The PLCAA does not give as much protection as many thought and the conservative justices honored the law, not their politics, in letting the state court ruling stand.

Extending the point above, following the law even when it does not give us the result we want is exactly what I want conservative justices to do. Usually, but not always, their following the law will give us what we want. When it does not, the short term victory of getting what we want in a given case would come at a much higher cost of justices establishing a dangerous practice of doing what they want regardless of the law.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrm]

I was just throwing out a reason why people might be upset. I completely agree that I want judges in all their permutations following the law strictly in their rulings even if it results in an outcome I might not prefer. The legislature is the branch to address those concerns.

[Odin Bravo One]

Looks like Outdoor Brands has seen the writing in the wall and is feeding Smith and Wesson to wolves.

[0ddl0t]

Looks like Outdoor Brands has seen the writing in the wall and is feeding Smith and Wesson to wolves.

Buy a profitable gun company, load it up with debt buying other "outdoor" brands, then spin off the debt-laden gun company near bankruptcy. Hostile takeovers meet social justice activism...

[GardoneVT]

Buy a profitable gun company, load it up with debt buying other "outdoor" brands, then spin off the debt-laden gun company near bankruptcy. Hostile takeovers meet social justice activism...

Closer to a speculative move gone south. If Hillary Clinton won , they’d be stacking the bills.

[OlongJohnson]

Maybe they can get out from under the union contracts...

[the Schwartz]

Looks like Outdoor Brands has seen the writing in the wall and is feeding Smith and Wesson to wolves.

Most likely, it is a move to isolate the rest of their assets/holdings from any potential liability that the S&W brand may evetually see.

[Old Man Winter]

Does this bring an end to product marketing which depicts multicam clad warriors kitted up in the latest secret squirrel gear to imply said product is used by elite military commandos?

[Kingsfield]

I am asking a question here. Not saying this is necessarily my thoughts.

What does suing the company have to do with the constitution or the 2nd amendment specifically? McDonald’s got sued over hot coffee along with millions of other pointless lawsuits? Maybe the scotus determined that this did not effect individuals rights right to bear arms. They pass on a lot of things we have no clue about. And also state laws are not necessarily federal either. Each state does have their own specific set of laws. So maybe they also figured this is a internal issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/114712/20190904164657367_2A-law-profs-cert-amicus-brief.pdf

TL;DR: "SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Second Amendment requires protection from abusive civil lawsuits, just as the First Amendment did in New York Times v. Sullivan...."

[Trukinjp13]

See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/114712/20190904164657367_2A-law-profs-cert-amicus-brief.pdf

TL;DR: "SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Second Amendment requires protection from abusive civil lawsuits, just as the First Amendment did in New York Times v. Sullivan...."

Thank you. So why in the hell did they deny the case if this is a federal law?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk