Aren’t certain food provisions also designed for “military use”?
There are even “military grade” computer chips that endure high and low temperatures better.
This is an odd standard for a lawsuit.
How many times have they filed this lawsuit now?
This should be summarily dismissed due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Once it has been demonstrated that Remington lawfully sold the firearm, the case is moot.
Funny stuff. AR-15s were not designed for “military use”, they were designed for “civilian use” when they changed the design of M-16s to fire only in a semi-automatic mode and thus created the AR-15.
Military firearms are the exact firearms protected by the Second Amendment.
Actually the AR-15 was not designed for military use, it's selective fire cousin was. But, even if it was, so what? The semi-auto pistol was designed for military use. Bolt action rifles were designed for military use. Lots of items we use all the time were originally designed for military use.
Judge: Case dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff pays court cost and lawyer fees to Remington.
This lawsuit is a politically-motivated attack on a gun maker, Remington, to hurt them financially. We need to counter such measures by purchasing Remington firearms. The 870 shotgun and 700 rifle are industry standards. Their Model 1911 R1 is a fine .45 and they seem to have worked the kinks out of the R51 9mm which, with it's rounded edges and sleek profile, would make a good carry pistol.
You never let go the murder of a child, get over yourself.
They sued cigarette companies for marketing to children so now they want to try it with guns. Its against the law to sell cigs to kids, not against the law to sell military style weapons to adults.
I actually feel sorry for those families. They have gotten roped in and taken by a bunch of shyster lawyers (probably redundant) who are taking advantage of them and their suffering. This case has virtually no chance of a favorable outcome for them. It is uphill all the way.
How exactly do they intend to connect the dots?
One, they'll have to prove a link between marketing and liability. Shaky at best. Whatever specific ways they try to do this will be easily countered by any competent lawyer.
Two, prove negligence in the marketing as being targeted at psychotic killers. Non-existent and virtually impossible.
Three "designed" for military use - so many problems with that.
Three-A, they can quite easily show that it incorporated many design features specifically for the civilian market. So "based-on" a military design is about the best they can do. It's probably a trap though, Remington can show specific civilian features (eg. semi-auto vs full-auto) that specifically reduce the effectiveness of murdering psychotics.
Three-B designed for military use - so what? Many of the same features (eg. corrosion resistance) are desirable in civilian firearms.
Three-C, again, so-what? Designed to be effective for the military, civilians protecting themselves and families want/deserve that same level of protection. (eg. no distinction in protection in other areas: smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, air bags, etc. etc.)
Even if they find a judge and/or jury willing to go along with this charade... Remington has far deeper pockets - they'll just appeal on up until they find a saner court. Meanwhile the shysters will have bled these families dry.
I’m so sick of all these purported “gun victims”. The same gun was used by the attacker and the defender in the Texas Church Massacre. The gun is irrelevant. The intentions of the person mean everything.
If the dead adults at Sandy Hook could have a do-over, I’d be they would have liked to face Adam Lanza with a gun of their own.
In November 2015 in Paris, terrorists killed 130 using fully automatic M70s and AK-47s. Doubt anyone can buy these in any French gun store.
Not sure what banning "ugly" rifles is supposed to do do. (Except for incrementalism -- "Okay, that didn't work. What can we ban next?")
If it even mattered, which it doesn’t, the only question that needs to be asked is “what branch of the U.S. military uses the AR-15?”
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
They will lose and the courts will order them to pay the defendants’ lawyer fees and they will cry how unfair it is. Just like the Aurora movie theater shooting.
Did Remington Outdoor Co. even own Bushmaster at the time the rifle was sold?
Sorry, but until all the anomalies have been adequately addressed, the SH official narrative is a stinking pile of trash. What parent of a murdered child is laughing until caught on CNN, then gives a phony melodramatic performance when he realizes the cameras are rolling?