https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...lawsuit-069826
Guess the new court isn't our saviors. Of course, this is hot off the presses. But the suit goes on!
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...lawsuit-069826
Guess the new court isn't our saviors. Of course, this is hot off the presses. But the suit goes on!
That is pathetic and unjust.
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?
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.
HUH? Not understanding this at all.
Are the opinions available somewhere?
"And for a regular dude I’m maybe okay...but what I learned is if there’s a door, I’m going out it not in it"-Duke
"Just because a girl sleeps with her brother doesn't mean she's easy..."-Blues
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?
Last edited by TAZ; 11-12-2019 at 10:30 AM.
(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.
We always could. Why do you think those commercials are loaded with disclaimers about professional drivers on closed courses?
Because the game doesn't fit the preconceived blame of these activists.So if the advertising and product placement into video games is an issue, why isn’t the video game a target as well?
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/supa...1/331CR865.pdf
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/...19zor_db8e.pdf) which can happen for a variety of reasons, but does not include an explanation.