Posted on 03/14/2019 11:21:30 AM PDT by bgill
So we can sue car companies for drunk drivers?
If the law says a certain age group can purchase weapons, there is no malfeasance whatsoever marketing to them.
Negligence my ass...
Lookout automakers, you’re next. If a gun manufacturer can be sued, then automakers and any manufacturered product can be sued for wrongful deaths.
If Remington wins, they should countersue for legal costs.
Wrongful marketing? That would seem to be an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.
Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the state Supreme Court during arguments in November 2017 the Bushmaster rifle and other AR-15-style rifles were designed as military killing machines and should never have been sold to the public.
I believe there is a case to be made for the lawyer having lied to the court, but the lie is subtle and probably lost on a typical judge or jury. What isn't in question is that the basic premise of the lawyer's statement is flawed.
Every time someone comes up with the "...it is intended for military use, not civilians..." excuse for violating our Constitutionally protected rights I feel the need to put this in perspective. Intended for military use? My response is a resounding "So what?" Seriously, what does "designed or intended for military use" imply? Generally that means some of the design criteria included ruggedness, durability, accuracy, effectiveness at stopping people, ease of maintenance...etc. When talking of the AR-15 specifically, and the military M16/M4 variants about the only design criteria that doesn't weigh into my consideration is the relatively lightweight ammo consideration. I'm not a grunt, I don't hump the rifle and a couple hundred rounds up and down hills and through swamps. Mostly I just put it in a case, in a vehicle, and drive to the range. But when considering a rifle for home protection and sporting/fun use at the range... The AR-15 comes out as a pretty good option. Ammunition is relatively inexpensive compared to most other rifle calibers (except 22LR). Recoil is very manageable, in fact so light it basically removes it from the equation. Accessories and options abound. But most importantly for this debate - effectiveness at stopping people. Bravo, and {expletive}-yeah I want an effective weapon if I'm ever forced to use it to defend mine and/or my family's lives! Who the {expletive} has the right to tell me what is "too effective" or "effective enough" for me when it comes to defending my family. You want to tell me I only need seatbelts and airbags in the front seat of my car because saving half my family in an accident is "good enough?" Maybe I only need a smoke detector in the master bedroom because that'll be "good enough" in case of a fire. Ridiculous, right? So don't try to tell me what is "good enough" when it comes to defending my family. I'll make that determination based on my criteria, my priorities, and my constraints. So just because something was "designed for the military" doesn't mean it shouldn't be used by civilians. Guess what, civilians have many of the same needs.
"The families' goal has always been to shed light on Remington's calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans' safety," Koskoff said
BS. Pure unadulterated BS. Why would any company court high risk users of its product? It would be an idiotic strategy. What company would want it's product associated with idiots/fools/criminals? Heck, just look at the movie and TV industry. When they get sponsors their products are always shown in a positive light - used by the good guys, etc. etc. Often when you see the bad guy driving a car etc. it won't be the same make as the good guy's vehicle, and the company logo may even be obscured or removed. No-one likes bad advertising. There is no way I would believe Remington or any other firearms manufacturer intentionally marketed to high risk individuals. Nope, not unless and until I see a signed memo from their marketing director saying basically "Yeah, let's go after the evil psychopath demographic, I think that's a market that is under served by our product line..."
They can’t be sued for selling guns, they court is allowing them to be sued for the equivalent of “false advertising”.
This has to go immediately to the Supreme Court. It violates the Supreme Court ruling and will go down when it is heard. It is a shame that there is no punishment for the lower court for this ruling.
Why don’t they just dig up Nancy Lanza & sue her?
“FREEDOM Dispenser,”
Beautiful!
Didn’t Lonza play violent video games.
“The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.
Well, that should send a shiver down anyone’s spine.
That could be applied to conservative though by
any liberal administration, should they ever get all
three branches of government in their control.
Sorry, four, I left out the media.
Sorry, conservative thought.
The ruling is in contravention of the PLCAA (15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903) and will not stand. Just more effort to niggle a firearms manufacture into bankruptcy with nuisance lawsuits.
Who’s to know? Too many of the games in crime scene photos didn’t match the game players they were next to and that dance revolution pad was new.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.