If you paid, you lost in my view, especially at those $ figures.
If you paid, you lost in my view, especially at those $ figures.
If correct, it sure does.Originally Posted by joshs
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
It does corroborate the ME's statement.
Methinks this case isnt about the law . The parents are angry-yet inconveniently for them both the perpetrator and the owner of the guns he stole are dead, and Congress voted down further legal restrictions at the Federal level. They want their pound of flesh, and the only actors left to extract it from is the school board and Bushmaster Firearms.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
Do they want their pound of flesh or did lawyers find a highly emotional and media flooded case that could, if settled, make them a lot more money than the plaintiffs would?
No one will make a lot of money by suing a federal firearm licensee in a civil case where there is an intervening criminal misuse of the firearm unless the case involves a negligent entrustment claim or alleges that the harm resulted from the violation of a state or federal statute that regulates firearms. The PLCAA has been almost universally successful in stopping these cases on motions for summary judgement.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
NPR version of the same story that HCountyGuy posted - https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/70343...o-move-forward
The 4-3 majority largely upheld arguments made by lawyers for Remington that the company is protected from suit in many instances. The court ruled, however, that Congress did not intend the PLCAA to preclude state law. Ultimately, the majority said, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.
Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."
Last edited by RevolverRob; 03-14-2019 at 01:32 PM.
The parents of the Sandy Hook victims are enemies of the Constitution.
Do these ads promote violence?
If so, wouldn't automakers be on the hook for every reckless driving death from a sports car with a "closed course professional driver" advertisement?
Reply With Quote
