Scotus -oh dear, Remington

[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/Prot...ce_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/Prot...ce_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/Prot...ce_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.