Jump to content


Photo

Soto v. Bushmaster - Court rules gun maker can be sued over Newtown shooting


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#91 lilguy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 444 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 11

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:20 PM


If you by a Porsche thats marketed to go 0-60 in 3 secs and tops out at 190 mph. Is porsche on the hook for damages if you operate it at that level and crash into a school yard full of kid, on purpose or not, doing so? inquiring minds want to know.

#92 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,533 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:21 PM

Remington didn't sell it to the shooter anyway, so how can they sue? His mom bought it and didn't commit any crime or break any laws. They are suing for the legal actions of a criminal's family member too which sets more bad precedents.

 

It's beyond my scope and probably yours, too. I'd guess there is justification or it wouldn't get this far.

I recall that mom bought it for her son... Ya don't buy something your son doesn't like and won't use?


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#93 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,786 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:23 PM

Remington didn't sell it to the shooter anyway, so how can they sue? His mom bought it and didn't commit any crime or break any laws. They are suing for the legal actions of a criminal's family member too which sets more bad precedents.

 
It's beyond my scope and probably yours, too. I'd guess there is justification or it wouldn't get this far.
I recall that mom bought it for her son... Ya don't buy something your son doesn't like and won't use?

The son stole it after he killed his mom

#94 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 21,057 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:28 PM

SCOTUS likes to let the lower courts sort things out without interfering, if they can avoid it. It could be more about that than the merits of the case.

#95 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:41 PM

Remington didn't sell it to the shooter anyway, so how can they sue? His mom bought it and didn't commit any crime or break any laws. They are suing for the legal actions of a criminal's family member too which sets more bad precedents.

 
It's beyond my scope and probably yours, too. I'd guess there is justification or it wouldn't get this far.
I recall that mom bought it for her son... Ya don't buy something your son doesn't like and won't use?

The son stole it after he killed his mom

That's right Steve, she didn't buy it for him and he stole it. They are lying and making things up and have no standing to sue.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#96 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,786 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:42 PM

SCOTUS likes to let the lower courts sort things out without interfering, if they can avoid it. It could be more about that than the merits of the case.


It appears that’s it. If it gets too crazy, it could end up back at SCOTUS

#97 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,533 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:42 PM

 

 

Remington didn't sell it to the shooter anyway, so how can they sue? His mom bought it and didn't commit any crime or break any laws. They are suing for the legal actions of a criminal's family member too which sets more bad precedents.

 
It's beyond my scope and probably yours, too. I'd guess there is justification or it wouldn't get this far.
I recall that mom bought it for her son... Ya don't buy something your son doesn't like and won't use?

The son stole it after he killed his mom

 

For any further discussion about the justification for the lawsuit... I defer to post #94.

 

I was at Sandyhook, too.

Somewhere in the tale, I vaguely recall, mom bought it because he wasn't old enough to buy one.

Legally it was hers...


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#98 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,786 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:44 PM

[quote name="soundguy" post="1237446" timestamp="1573602171"][quote name="steveTA84" post="1237441" timestamp="1573600988"]
[quote name="soundguy" post="1237440" timestamp="1573600865"]
[quote name="357" post="1237438" timestamp="1573600382"]
Remington didn't sell it to the shooter anyway, so how can they sue? His mom bought it and didn't commit any crime or break any laws. They are suing for the legal actions of a criminal's family member too which sets more bad precedents.
[/quote]
 
It's beyond my scope and probably yours, too. I'd guess there is justification or it wouldn't get this far.
I recall that mom bought it for her son... Ya don't buy something your son doesn't like and won't use?[/quote]

The son stole it after he killed his mom
[/quote]
 
For any further discussion about the justification for the lawsuit... I defer to post #94.
 
I was at Sandyhook, too.
Somewhere in the tale, I vaguely recall, mom bought it because he wasn't old enough to buy one.
Legally it was hers...[/quote]

If that’s the case, sounds like a possible straw purchase

#99 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:56 PM

[quote name="soundguy" post="1237446" timestamp="1573602171"][quote name="steveTA84" post="1237441" timestamp="1573600988"]
[quote name="soundguy" post="1237440" timestamp="1573600865"]
[quote name="357" post="1237438" timestamp="1573600382"]
Remington didn't sell it to the shooter anyway, so how can they sue? His mom bought it and didn't commit any crime or break any laws. They are suing for the legal actions of a criminal's family member too which sets more bad precedents.
[/quote]
 
It's beyond my scope and probably yours, too. I'd guess there is justification or it wouldn't get this far.
I recall that mom bought it for her son... Ya don't buy something your son doesn't like and won't use?[/quote]

The son stole it after he killed his mom
[/quote]
 
For any further discussion about the justification for the lawsuit... I defer to post #94.
 
I was at Sandyhook, too.
Somewhere in the tale, I vaguely recall, mom bought it because he wasn't old enough to buy one.
Legally it was hers...[/quote]

Never heard that and I have followed the story from the beginning including the inconsistencies and the official story was that it was hers and he took it from her after he killed her.

Can you show one news story or official story that says she bought it for him? Vaguely recall sounds like conjecture.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#100 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 12 November 2019 - 06:07 PM



Remington didn't sell it to the shooter anyway, so how can they sue? His mom bought it and didn't commit any crime or break any laws. They are suing for the legal actions of a criminal's family member too which sets more bad precedents.


 
It's beyond my scope and probably yours, too. I'd guess there is justification or it wouldn't get this far.
I recall that mom bought it for her son... Ya don't buy something your son doesn't like and won't use?



The son stole it after he killed his mom


 
For any further discussion about the justification for the lawsuit... I defer to post #94.
 
I was at Sandyhook, too.
Somewhere in the tale, I vaguely recall, mom bought it because he wasn't old enough to buy one.
Legally it was hers...


If that’s the case, sounds like a possible straw purchase

 

So, if that actually is the case, how does that affect the standing of the suit against Remington and its advertising? I really want to see the advertising that caused someone to commit a Federal felony so that another person could commit a mass shooting?


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#101 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,533 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 06:58 PM

So, if that actually is the case, how does that affect the standing of the suit against Remington and its advertising? I really want to see the advertising that caused someone to commit a Federal felony so that another person could commit a mass shooting?

 

It would be more like when you buy that pink Cricket for your daughter on her 9th birthday and keep it secured for her use when you  the range or plinking on your back 40 dad or mom. It's hers, but legally it's yours. Straw purchase? I don't think so.

 

She's dead. He's dead. The lawsuit doesn't involve either of them.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#102 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,533 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 07:02 PM

Can you show one news story or official story that says she bought it for him? Vaguely recall sounds like conjecture.

 

Nope.

Go buy a pink Cricket for your 9 year old daughter... is it hers or yours?


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#103 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 07:10 PM

Can you show one news story or official story that says she bought it for him? Vaguely recall sounds like conjecture.

 
Nope.
Go buy a pink Cricket for your 9 year old daughter... is it hers or yours?

Where did you get that, can you post one source that says she bought it for him?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#104 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,533 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 07:45 PM

 

 

Can you show one news story or official story that says she bought it for him? Vaguely recall sounds like conjecture.

 
Nope.
Go buy a pink Cricket for your 9 year old daughter... is it hers or yours?

Where did you get that, can you post one source that says she bought it for him?

 

 

Dude... she's dead. He's dead. Maybe the survivors have standing. It's not about the shooter or how he got the gun... it's about the survivors and Remington and their marketing. Stupid? Probably. Worth arguing a point no one can win? Not at all!

 

Minutiae.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#105 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 08:07 PM

[quote name="soundguy" post="1237473" timestamp="1573609545"][quote name="357" post="1237469" timestamp="1573607419"]
[quote name="soundguy" post="1237466" timestamp="1573606935"]
[quote name="357" post="1237453" timestamp="1573603014"]
Can you show one news story or official story that says she bought it for him? Vaguely recall sounds like conjecture.
[/quote]
 
Nope.
Go buy a pink Cricket for your 9 year old daughter... is it hers or yours?[/quote]

Where did you get that, can you post one source that says she bought it for him?
[/quote]
 
Dude... she's dead. He's dead. Maybe the survivors have standing. It's not about the shooter or how he got the gun... it's about the survivors and Remington and their marketing. Stupid? Probably. Worth arguing a point no one can win? Not at all!
 
Minutiae.[/quote]

They don't have standing because Remington and their marketing have nothing to do with the deaths.

They are part of the conspiracy and financed by Bloomberg and using children and emotional blackmail to take away our rights and make gun makers go out of business. The courts should not fall for it, especially the Supreme Court.

It's not minutiae, I don't understand how you can say maybe they have standing and make excuses for them and why you always take the side of antis.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#106 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,533 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 12 November 2019 - 08:40 PM

[quote name="357" post="1237482" timestamp="1573610877"][quote name="soundguy" post="1237473" timestamp="1573609545"][quote name="357" post="1237469" timestamp="1573607419"]
[quote name="soundguy" post="1237466" timestamp="1573606935"]
[quote name="357" post="1237453" timestamp="1573603014"]
Can you show one news story or official story that says she bought it for him? Vaguely recall sounds like conjecture.
[/quote]
 
Nope.
Go buy a pink Cricket for your 9 year old daughter... is it hers or yours?[/quote]

Where did you get that, can you post one source that says she bought it for him?
[/quote]
 
Dude... she's dead. He's dead. Maybe the survivors have standing. It's not about the shooter or how he got the gun... it's about the survivors and Remington and their marketing. Stupid? Probably. Worth arguing a point no one can win? Not at all!
 
Minutiae.[/quote]

They don't have standing because Remington and their marketing have nothing to do with the deaths.

They are part of the conspiracy and financed by Bloomberg and using children and emotional blackmail to take away our rights and make gun makers go out of business. The courts should not fall for it, especially the Supreme Court.

It's not minutiae, I don't understand how you can say maybe they have standing and make excuses for them and why you always take the side of antis.[/quote]

I don’t know and either do you. But there’s a court that is letting this proceed. I’d guess some good amount of time has been put into thinking this through by the court. Heck... it might turn out in our favor.

Early call tomorrow so it’s bedtime. Sleep in peace!
Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#107 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 12 November 2019 - 08:58 PM

[quote name="soundguy" post="1237490" timestamp="1573612858"][quote name="357" post="1237482" timestamp="1573610877"][quote name="soundguy" post="1237473" timestamp="1573609545"][quote name="357" post="1237469" timestamp="1573607419"]
[quote name="soundguy" post="1237466" timestamp="1573606935"]
[quote name="357" post="1237453" timestamp="1573603014"]
Can you show one news story or official story that says she bought it for him? Vaguely recall sounds like conjecture.
[/quote]
 
Nope.
Go buy a pink Cricket for your 9 year old daughter... is it hers or yours?[/quote]

Where did you get that, can you post one source that says she bought it for him?
[/quote]
 
Dude... she's dead. He's dead. Maybe the survivors have standing. It's not about the shooter or how he got the gun... it's about the survivors and Remington and their marketing. Stupid? Probably. Worth arguing a point no one can win? Not at all!
 
Minutiae.[/quote]

They don't have standing because Remington and their marketing have nothing to do with the deaths.

They are part of the conspiracy and financed by Bloomberg and using children and emotional blackmail to take away our rights and make gun makers go out of business. The courts should not fall for it, especially the Supreme Court.

It's not minutiae, I don't understand how you can say maybe they have standing and make excuses for them and why you always take the side of antis.[/quote]

I don’t know and either do you. But there’s a court that is letting this proceed. I’d guess some good amount of time has been put into thinking this through by the court. Heck... it might turn out in our favor.

Early call tomorrow so it’s bedtime. Sleep in peace![/quote]

I hope it turns in our favor, good night!
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#108 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 12 November 2019 - 09:34 PM

The advertising they've been referencing on the various news outlets has been the following picture from what I've seen. Even though it's NOT a Remington advertisement... (i know they own BM though)

bushmaster-man-card-banner.jpg


Edited by Bird76Mojo, 12 November 2019 - 09:36 PM.

Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#109 MagSlap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,553 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 15

Posted 12 November 2019 - 09:57 PM

The advertising they've been referencing on the various news outlets has been the following picture from what I've seen. Even though it's NOT a Remington advertisement... (i know they own BM though)

bushmaster-man-card-banner.jpg

 

 

Was he using Brute?

Are they being sued as well?

785295014661652291.jpg

 

Did they check his pockets and find chapstick?

Creativity+Final_reviseLeo+3.jpg


Edited by MagSlap, 12 November 2019 - 10:02 PM.


#110 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 13 November 2019 - 12:55 AM

 
From CNBC:
 
Remington argued that its actions were protected under a 2005 law that shields gun makers from liability for crimes committed with their products. That law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, has come under new scrutiny amid a rise in mass shootings.
 
An exception in the law, provided in cases where the gun manufacturer knowingly violated the law through its marketing practices, paved the way for the families to launch their suit. They claim that Remington marketed the weapon as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal namely, killing other human beings.

SCOTUS likes to let the lower courts sort things out without interfering, if they can avoid it. It could be more about that than the merits of the case.

IMO were underestimating a rather brilliant legal trap the antis are setting.

So heres Remington with a PR department, boardroom investors, and the negative media spotlight. They wont say 2nd Amendment, all enemies foreign and domestic, mic drop. They will play the public image friendly NSSF sporting goods/competition angle. If they do theres a very good chance theyll lose this case setting a precedence.

Activist judges on the lower courts are attempting to cede their handgun bans in exchange to redefining DC vs Heller the power to arbitrarily limit gun types/feature. On rational basis rather than strict scrutiny. Thomas and Scalia directly called this out in the dissent for not hearing Friedman vs Highland Park. Referenced here http://illinoiscarry...71911&p=1210220

This highlights the faustian bargain we make when defending the AR as a piece of sporting equipment to not offend delicate sensibilities. Remington will fall for this same trap opening up the floodgates of lawsuits until a manufacturer with deep enough pockets takes a stand and supports the 2nd amendment as its intended. Shutting down these lower courts, cities, and states.

Deadly sporting equipment is not a constitutional right, a deadly weapon is a well regulated weapon in the parlance of 1791. Advertising as such would be fair game, just like the features listed on a box of personal defense ammo.

If you by a Porsche thats marketed to go 0-60 in 3 secs and tops out at 190 mph. Is porsche on the hook for damages if you operate it at that level and crash into a school yard full of kid, on purpose or not, doing so? inquiring minds want to know.

Most likely yes, given this case of the Carrera GT, even with other named defendants being deemed negligent. Porsche paid 8% in a 4.5 million dollar lawsuit in an amateur track accident. They also settled for an undisclosed amount in the death of Paul Walker where the driver was deemed to be breaking the law. These lawsuits argued the Carrera GTs performance and handling demanded a skilled race car driver therefore should not of been sold to the public. https://www.autoblog...arrera-gt-case/

https://abcnews.go.c...ory?id=50694081

The infamous lawn darts ban
https://web.archive....ml97/97122.html

Edited by chicagoresident, 13 November 2019 - 01:51 AM.


#111 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 13 November 2019 - 02:08 AM

Folks should not read too much into the denial of the cert petition.  On July 30th of this year, SCOTUS denied an application for a stay of the district court proceedings in what must be the nuttiest lawsuit ever to survive a motion to dismiss, Juliana v. United States.

 

This case did not present a Second Amendment question.  The question presented was, "The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a)."

 
This case is a long way from the plaintiffs winning a dime.  And if the plaintiffs lose, they will have to pay the defendants' attorney fees and costs.

Concealed carry is of no use to me because I don't carry a purse or wear a dress, and I'm not into secret advantage and unmanly assassination.

 

"Should the Open Carry movement become successful it will result in the greatest dissolution of government power since the collapse of the Soviet Union." - Charles Nichols
 
"If a monkey looks into a book, a sage cannot look out." - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
 
"La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas." - Charles Baudelaire 
 
"God doesn't want me and the devil isn't finished with me." - Raymond Reddington
 
"When you lift the last veil, you might discover that your bride is an ignorant, illiterate child living in a world of fear and superstition." - Charles Nichols.* 
 
* I posted this on my Facebook page on May 20, 2011.  Unable to find its origin, I claim to be its creator.

#112 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,533 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 13 November 2019 - 04:54 AM

The advertising they've been referencing on the various news outlets has been the following picture from what I've seen. Even though it's NOT a Remington advertisement... (i know they own BM though)

bushmaster-man-card-banner.jpg

 

The shooter used a Bushmaster.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#113 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,786 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 13 November 2019 - 07:43 AM

^^^^

I dont see anything wrong with that. Its an ad and doesnt promote murder. Remington owns Bushmaster btw

Edited by steveTA84, 13 November 2019 - 07:44 AM.


#114 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,111 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 13 November 2019 - 03:11 PM

My understanding is that the short version of the argument is that, by targeting men who may feel like their masculinity is being persecuted or questioned, Remington is attempting to sell guns to the people least likely to be responsible owners. Personally, I think it's a stupid ad, but the world is full of stupid ads that capitalize on people's insecurities. Too fat and ugly? We'll make you thin and beautiful. Etc. My "man card" doesn't depend on what firearm I do or do not own.

Even if Remington was purposefully targeting marginal individuals for firearm ownership, I think it's a logical leap to say that Remington's ad was a crucial element that would inevitably cause some Remington owner somewhere to commit mass child murder (or any murder with any weapon) and that Remington should have known it.

It's a civil case, so Soto only has to prove "more likely than not," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but I think she still has an uphill battle.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#115 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 13 November 2019 - 04:30 PM

Redundant

Edited by chicagoresident, 13 November 2019 - 11:12 PM.


#116 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 13 November 2019 - 08:20 PM

Colion Noir of the NRA just made a video about it which explains everything.

https://youtu.be/41EsP2wJacc
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#117 Cerus

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 16

Posted 13 November 2019 - 09:25 PM

Didn’t he murder his mother to steal the gun? Are they claiming the ads targeted his mothers masculinity since she was the one who purchased it?

#118 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,361 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 13 November 2019 - 11:11 PM

So follow this stretch of what the plaintiff is alleging and focus on the ACR ad which is really what the case is about:

The plaintiffs have offered one narrow legal theory, however, that is recognized under established Connecticut law. Specifically, they allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies

From the case as reported by PDW

https://www.personal...shmaster-facts/
img.png
The lawyer had added these other ads just to paint Remington further in a bad light and to somehow show a connection of the xm15 back to the ACR.

Advertising illegal activities are not protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act

During the militia panic several states, Connecticut included, banned militia training. The anti gun anti constitution Anti Defamation League lobbied for these laws by rebranding civilian militias as paramilitaries http://www.vpc.org/studies/awapara.htm

Sec. 53-206b. Unlawful training in use of firearms, explosive or incendiary devices or techniques capable of causing injury. Class C felony.

(B) No person shall (1) teach or demonstrate to any person the use, application or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to a person, knowing or intending that such firearm, explosive, incendiary device or technique will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or (2) assemble with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to a person, intending to employ unlawfully such firearm, explosive, incendiary device or technique for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.

So by advertising military features to civilians to be used in civilian military training could be considered advertising to an illegal activity.

But the ad gives an out by saying these features benefit personal defense and law enforcement, so the plaintiff would have to prove the features didnt apply to personal defense but offensive combat. I dont see it in this ad. But it sets precedence. For example a tactical long range scope not advertised to sporting or law enforcement but to civilians could be held liable.

Remington doesnt have the brass to argue the unconstitutionality of the Connecticut unlawful training in the use of a firearm law, itd be bad PR for all the investors behind their holding company.

Then theres the stretch that Adam Lanza, after seeing this ad for the Bushmaster ACR that the plaintiff alleged was targeted towards one illegal activity (paramilitary training) thought it would be good for his illegal activity of a school massacre. So he told his mom to buy him a completely different Bushmaster than the one that was claimed he saw the advertisement for.

But its a guarantee youll see lawsuits against military features in states with militia bans, including Illinois. If we keep going down this sporting purpose path eventually theyll win one of these lawsuits. The paramilitary training bans need to be struck down.

Edited by chicagoresident, 13 November 2019 - 11:20 PM.


#119 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,111 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 13 November 2019 - 11:52 PM

Sec. 53-206b. Unlawful training in use of firearms, explosive or incendiary devices or techniques capable of causing injury. Class C felony.

(b) No person shall (1) teach or demonstrate to any person the use, application or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to a person, knowing or intending that such firearm, explosive, incendiary device or technique will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or (2) assemble with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to a person, intending to employ unlawfully such firearm, explosive, incendiary device or technique for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.


So if armed civil disorder is illegal, is Antifa illegal?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#120 Cerus

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 16

Posted 14 November 2019 - 03:01 AM

So if armed civil disorder is illegal, is Antifa illegal?


Of course not. They’re fully supported and endorsed by the left.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users