Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: Scotus -oh dear, Remington

  1. 11-14-2019, 02:32 PM #51
    0ddl0t
    0ddl0t is offline
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean M View Post
    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...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    1
     
  2. 11-14-2019, 02:35 PM #52
    GardoneVT
    GardoneVT is offline
    Member GardoneVT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    1
     
  3. 11-14-2019, 06:25 PM #53
    OlongJohnson
    OlongJohnson is offline
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Maybe they can get out from under the union contracts...
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    0
     
  4. 11-14-2019, 06:45 PM #54
    the Schwartz
    the Schwartz is offline
    Site Supporter the Schwartz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean M View Post
    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.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    1
     
  5. 11-14-2019, 09:24 PM #55
    Old Man Winter
    Old Man Winter is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    MN
    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?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    0
     
  6. 11-15-2019, 02:26 AM #56
    Kingsfield
    Kingsfield is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Trukinjp13 View Post
    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/DocketP...icus-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...."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    1
     
  7. 11-15-2019, 07:20 AM #57
    Trukinjp13
    Trukinjp13 is offline
    Site Supporter Trukinjp13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingsfield View Post
    See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...icus-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
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
    0
     
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules