Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

DING. Exactly. THat and they likely didn't see any possibility of settling, or clarifying an existing, precedent for lower courts to follow,


A lot of Gun owners, and antis are reading way too much into this.


THe case, imho, is going to be hard to win.


The real danger, imho, and the Plaintiff's legal team, has been real enthusiastic about it, is discovery. Expect the Plaintiffs to ask for a complete opening of all their records, and Remington going back to the court to fight that and limit it. I think this is actully the antis goal for this suit, get as much discovery, and leak anything they can use politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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?
Sure, but how about the other way around.


For instance this advertisement for Spikes Tacticals guns and gear depicts an armed militia (a civil disorder in itself) facing down another civilian disorder. Under the precedence of this law moving forward this would be an ad for an illegal activity. Spikes tactical would be liable for the first person that open fires on leftist protesters. No protection afforded by Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 1st amendment and 2nd amendment violation, but reactionary panic begs for it.


So what if Soto vs Remington is a loser, the anti gunners have infinitely deep pockets so winnable lawsuits will come.


Lets follow how the militia clause of the 2nd was systematically dismantled and its consequences:


The anti militia laws I referred to prior make it a precrime to even prepare for armed resistance. Its a state level expansion that adds add training drills to on federal law 18 USC Ch. 12: CIVIL DISORDERS

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim This anti constitutional language could be applied when you think of the purpose of manufacturing an 80% lower or providing files online for 3D printed guns. Unserialized untraceable guns could aid civil disorder, if guns are made illegal thats the point.


This in turn was built on the unfair Supreme Court ruling of Presser vs Illinois that allowed states to outlaw civilians from assembling even peaceably with arms (vaguely defined as parading or drilling). This in turn allowed states to pass laws prohibiting open carry marches. Most states have these laws, others can pass them on a whim.


This all goes back to the post industrial revolution chapter in American history absent from history books. The Bloombergs of their day formed private armies to gun down protesters including women and children. Eventually those being exploited with company store debt slavery in coal towns, destruction and forced sale of private farm property, sharecroppers, people being illegally blocked from voting out corrupt politicians, etc. began forming militias of their own.


Prior to that you had United States vs Cruikshank in which the corrupt Democratic Party tried to forcibly remove with arms a seated Republican parish party. The Parish was defended by a mostly black civilian militia against a Democrat party State sanctioned White supremicist militia. Not hyperbole, a battle cry by this army was Boys, this is for the future of the white race. Cruikshank wrongly decided that the defending civilian militia had no right to assemble and protect themselves. Only the state could afford them that right, laughable given the circumstances. Mcdonald vs Chicago overturned the individual right to defend but the collective right to defend is still denied outside of state sanctioned militias.


Again, we see the states deciding who is authorized to be a militia and who isnt. And that whole part about allowing states to decide who is militia and who isnt also has allowed states to decide who can own guns, what guns they can own, and what they can do with those guns even peacefully. Now it will allow states to control how guns are depicted, marketed, and instructed on across multiple mediums.


Death by a thousand cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this, y'all. Written by an attorney who will be arguing the NYC case. He sees very little danger in the Bushmaster case:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author of that article will not be arguing the NYC case. Paul Clement will be arguing for the petitioners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...