Uh oh...

[watercam]

Hammer fell on Remington...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-lawsuit-gun-manufacturer-proceed/2565344001/

 

[6MMsteve]

we have ways of taking your guns

 

[Rsadams]

Once again blame an inanimate object instead of the POS that murdered his own mother to get the gun to start with...

 

[Arcticshooter]

If Lawyers had morals, they wouldn't even take this case.

To quote (loosely)a lawyer who had asked my professional advice regarding what was clearly a case of Negligent Discharge.
I told him that the individual had violated at lest 2 of the 4 safety rules and his case had no logical leg to stand on. His reply was "logic and the truth have nothing to do with winning the case. The only thing that matters, is who tells the jury the best story."

It was overall a pretty disgusting conversation and has left a noticeable dent upon my view of the legal system.

 

[Texas10]

I've only seen a portion of one of the advertisements that are the subject of the lawsuit, and I was appalled by how breathtakingly stupid the ad was. Can anyone here provide a link to see those commercials? I believe that would shed some important light as to what the suit is about and why it was allowed to proceed.

I seems that many here, and on other forums are confused about what this lawsuit is about. Unless I'm mistaken, it's not about the lethality of the weapon used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it's about the promotion of a weapon ideal for civilian warfare, and any lawyer will paint that as slaughter of innocent civilians.

I don't think many Americans, especially jurors will support a company's promotion of the idea of an impending civil war in the US, and so a guilty verdict is almost certain. But it won't be about the weapon itself, although that fact will likely be buried by the hyperbole of anti-gun discussion that will surely follow.

It is up to groups like this one to make sure that FACTS are at least as easy to find and read as the FICTION that is ever so present. As I've opined before, these forums are researched by those wanting to write legislation, for and against our Second Amendment, and the more facts we put out there, the more likely a well reasoned law will be implemented to try to combat this wave of senseless massacres.

 

[antelopedundee]

If Lawyers had morals, they wouldn't even take this case.

To quote (loosely)a lawyer who had asked my professional advice regarding what was clearly a case of Negligent Discharge.
I told him that the individual had violated at lest 2 of the 4 safety rules and his case had no logical leg to stand on. His reply was "logic and the truth have nothing to do with winning the case. The only thing that matters, is who tells the jury the best story."

It was overall a pretty disgusting conversation and has left a noticeable dent upon my view of the legal system.

If all lawyers were of equal ability none of them would/should ever lose a case.

 

[clowdis]

It's just a preliminary way to get to the auto manufacturers. That's where the real money is for the lawyers, not in suing a bankrupt firearms manufacturer. Think of all the performance cars manufactured and advertised to go fast.

 

[antelopedundee]

It's just a preliminary way to get to the auto manufacturers. That's where the real money is for the lawyers, not in suing a bankrupt firearms manufacturer. Think of all the performance cars manufactured and advertised to go fast.

The auto is far more common to ALL CRIMES than a firearm will ever be. Sue the place that made the auto/bus that Adam Lanza used to get to the school.

 

[JimT]

I've only seen a portion of one of the advertisements that are the subject of the lawsuit, and I was appalled by how breathtakingly stupid the ad was. Can anyone here provide a link to see those commercials? I believe that would shed some important light as to what the suit is about and why it was allowed to proceed.

I seems that many here, and on other forums are confused about what this lawsuit is about. Unless I'm mistaken, it's not about the lethality of the weapon used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it's about the promotion of a weapon ideal for civilian warfare, and any lawyer will paint that as slaughter of innocent civilians.

I don't think many Americans, especially jurors will support a company's promotion of the idea of an impending civil war in the US, and so a guilty verdict is almost certain. But it won't be about the weapon itself, although that fact will likely be buried by the hyperbole of anti-gun discussion that will surely follow.

It is up to groups like this one to make sure that FACTS are at least as easy to find and read as the FICTION that is ever so present. As I've opined before, these forums are researched by those wanting to write legislation, for and against our Second Amendment, and the more facts we put out there, the more likely a well reasoned law will be implemented to try to combat this wave of senseless massacres.

I don’t expect anyone will actually read the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling at the link below, but there it is.

The advertisements are described in the ruling and certainly aren’t as pleasant sounding as a condom advertisement, but certainly don’t condone “criminal” behavior.


https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf

 

[Texas10]

Excerpt of pleading from plaintiffs: The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants advertised this rifle differently from how they would promote and sell rifles intended for legal civilian purposes such as hunting and recreation. In connection with this second theory of liability, the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ marketing of the rifle to civilians for offensive assault missions was a substantial factor in causing the decedents’ injuries in that L’s attack, had it occurred at all, would have been less lethal if L had not been encouraged by the defendants’ marketing campaign to select the rifle in question as his weapon of choice.

 

[JimT]

Excerpt of pleading from plaintiffs: The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants advertised this rifle differently from how they would promote and sell rifles intended for legal civilian purposes such as hunting and recreation. In connection with this second theory of liability, the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ marketing of the rifle to civilians for offensive assault missions was a substantial factor in causing the decedents’ injuries in that L’s attack, had it occurred at all, would have been less lethal if L had not been encouraged by the defendants’ marketing campaign to select the rifle in question as his weapon of choice.

Weak, weak, weak!!!

L never saw the marketing campaign because he was too busy playing violent video games where he actually learned about such weapons.

 

[Texas10]

You know that old saying "I don't have to run faster than the bear, only faster than you"?

As lawyers have said, Court is the stage where teams vie to produce the most entertaining and convincing story, all to earn the jury's votes. Facts don't mean a thing.

I believe this speaks volumes about the sad state of the legal system in America.

 

[JimT]

You know that old saying "I don't have to run faster than the bear, only faster than you"?

As lawyers have said, Court is the stage where teams vie to produce the most entertaining and convincing story, all to earn the jury's votes. Facts don't mean a thing.

I believe this speaks volumes about the sad state of the legal system in America.

Of course, that is why we have the appeals process where facts, appropriate application of the law, etc.,etc., have a better chance of being applied correctly.
The issue is not so much the sad state of the legal system it’s the fact that the juror pool represents the sad state of America.

 

[Texas10]

With the money that is at stake here, opponents in this lawsuit will almost certainly hire professional jury pickers to weed out from the jury pool the ones less susceptible to hyperbole and B.S. and keep those more easily swayed by the emotional aspects.

 

[Bill K]

It's just a preliminary way to get to the auto manufacturers. That's where the real money is for the lawyers, not in suing a bankrupt firearms manufacturer. Think of all the performance cars manufactured and advertised to go fast.

That was one of my thoughts, now with the court ruling they have a wide open and really large field to sue every car maker for putting out a product they know kills more people everyday, than all the firearms have done in years. Lots of money to be made now by lawyers coming forth. Just watch.

 

[JFrank]

I heard about an ad suggesting something about a wimp could take back his man card with a Bushmaster....
Is this true ???

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I've only seen a portion of one of the advertisements that are the subject of the lawsuit, and I was appalled by how breathtakingly stupid the ad was. Can anyone here provide a link to see those commercials? I believe that would shed some important light as to what the suit is about and why it was allowed to proceed.

I seems that many here, and on other forums are confused about what this lawsuit is about. Unless I'm mistaken, it's not about the lethality of the weapon used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it's about the promotion of a weapon ideal for civilian warfare, and any lawyer will paint that as slaughter of innocent civilians.

I don't think many Americans, especially jurors will support a company's promotion of the idea of an impending civil war in the US, and so a guilty verdict is almost certain. But it won't be about the weapon itself, although that fact will likely be buried by the hyperbole of anti-gun discussion that will surely follow.

It is up to groups like this one to make sure that FACTS are at least as easy to find and read as the FICTION that is ever so present. As I've opined before, these forums are researched by those wanting to write legislation, for and against our Second Amendment, and the more facts we put out there, the more likely a well reasoned law will be implemented to try to combat this wave of senseless massacres.

With all due respect, the lawsuit is not about the ad, nor the so-called lethality of the firearm, it is about financially intimidating corporations from buying, investing in or owning firearms manufacturing in the US. The ad, and the much maligned "AR-15" are triggers for the right jury, and a hoped for weakness in the shield law that was passed in order to protect manufacturers from the then-popular onslaught of the gun-banners who saw it at the time as the weak link in the Second Amendment. Now they think they have found a chink in the armor. Make no mistake, this is about getting guns out of your hands....

 

[Texas10]

With all due respect, the lawsuit is not about the ad, nor the so-called lethality of the firearm, it is about financially intimidating corporations from buying, investing in or owning firearms manufacturing in the US. The ad, and the much maligned "AR-15" are triggers for the right jury, and a hoped for weakness in the shield law that was passed in order to protect manufacturers from the then-popular onslaught of the gun-banners who saw it at the time as the weak link in the Second Amendment. Now they think they have found a chink in the armor. Make no mistake, this is about getting guns out of your hands....

I'd be interested in reading the court's opinion that supports your position, if you wouldn't mind linking or quoting.

I read the above linked court opinion, and did not find any support for the "deep state conspiracy" theory, so in case I don't read so well, please feel free to post some facts.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I'd be interested in reading the court's opinion that supports your position, if you wouldn't mind linking or quoting.

I read the above linked court opinion, and did not find any support for the "deep state conspiracy" theory, so in case I don't read so well, please feel free to post some facts.

Well Tex, I suggest you read the legislative intent behind the manufacturers' shield law that is cited in the "court opinion" which you read. You do know how to find a record of the legislative intent, don't you? If you are not aware of the concerted effort to disarm the American public, I can only assume that (1) you don't really read so well, (2) you don't want to be aware, (we call that intentional ignorance) or (3) you know it and don't want anyone else to be aware. I do hope all three of those assumptions are wrong and you are sincerely unaware - but the research obligation is yours, not mine. The evidence is available to you via internet if you choose to seek it out. If not, they say ignorance is bliss. May you remain blissful...

 

[JimT]

I heard about an ad suggesting something about a wimp could take back his man card with a Bushmaster....
Is this true ???

You can’t believe everything you read at the Huffington Post.