The real threat

  • Yeah... it looks like the state supremes are letting this go through. the biggest hint was the decision was 4-3 that is only seven justices.


    What they did by letting it go through was violate a federal law. I don't think this is going anywhere.


    I am gonna go full Darth here..........has anyone noticed that while the dems are so busy with impeachment that there haven't been many mass shootings?


    lazs

    "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."



    Pancho Villa, last words (1877 - 1923)

  • I am gonna go full Darth here..........has anyone noticed that while the dems are so busy with impeachment that there haven't been many mass shootings?


    lazs

    See? Its not so hard to use your brain

    Im no doc, ya flea bitten varmint. Im Riff Raff Sam, the riffiest riff whoever riffed a raff

  • Yeah... but it makes mine hurt... how do you stand the pain? And the snickering behind your back? I am a long ways off I guess still.


    Iron... yes. what the real goal seems to be... is find a gun company barely hanging on and kill em with legal fees. Also the article said that they were going to show all the bloody carnage.... they will smear that shit all over the tube.


    lazs

    "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."



    Pancho Villa, last words (1877 - 1923)

  • I don't see how a gun manufacturer would be responsible for someone being shot.


    If a drunk driver was in a Honda and plowed into a group of people, Honda isn't responsible.

    “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official.”

  • The claim is that they are liable for their marketing. Promoting the rifle as a killing machine. Little doubt that a jury of liberals will award many millions if given the chance. That will have to go back to the SCOTUS. Maybe RBG will be pushing up daises by then.

  • It is said the marketing/advertising as a military type weapon.


    "The plaintiffs have argued that Remington bears some of the blame for the Sandy Hook tragedy. They said the Bushmaster AR-15 gun that Lanza used - a semi-automatic civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16 - had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings.


    The plaintiffs said that Connecticut’s consumer protection law forbids advertising that promotes violent, criminal behavior and yet even though these rifles have become the “weapon of choice for mass shooters” Remington’s ads “continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman.” One of them, they noted, stated, “Forces of opposition, bow down.” "


    PS: see Iron posted while I was reading the articles.

  • The article is poorly written. There are two supreme courts involved here, state and US. The article does not clarify. I looked elsewhere. It is the SCOTUS that pushed it back as implied in the article.


    The biggest problem here is that the USA Supreme Court gets to choose which cases it hears. That's the largest scam in the process...


  • The problem is that they didn't market to the perpetrator of this crime. The perpetrator was not allowed to own guns, and literally had to commit murder to even get his hands on the rifle.



    But logic and facts are anathema to liberals.