Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 14th, 2019, 12:22 PM #61
danb's Avatar
danb danb is online now
i pi
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 19,179
danb danb is online now
i pi
danb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howard County
Posts: 19,179
what was the "marketing claim" that was allowed to move forward?
danb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2019, 12:25 PM #62
NoMoreTreadingOnUs NoMoreTreadingOnUs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 120
NoMoreTreadingOnUs NoMoreTreadingOnUs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 120
From the WSJ: "The ruling allows the plaintiffs to move forward with their claims that Remington Outdoor Co. violated Connecticut’s law against unfair trade practices by allegedly promoting the rifle as a combat weapon intended for waging war and killing human beings."

Somehow I'm skeptical about the accuracy of that description.
NoMoreTreadingOnUs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2019, 12:49 PM #63
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,852
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,852
Here's more on the ruling ...

Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability
https://nyti.ms/2CiMz8s

Quote:
The ruling allows the lawsuit brought by victims’ relatives to go to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications that they have fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing — and possibly damaging — glimpse into how the industry operates.

...

The ruling validates the novel strategy lawyers for the victims’ families used as they sought to find a route around the vast protections in federal law that guard gun companies from litigation when their products are used to commit a crime.

...

The lawsuit argued that the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack had been marketed as a weapon of war, invoking the violence of combat and using slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Such messages reflected, according to the lawsuit, a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire. The attack traumatized the nation and made Newtown, Conn., the small town where it happened, a rallying point in the broader debate over gun violence.

...

The lawsuit, brought by family members of nine people who were killed and a teacher who was shot and survived, was originally filed in 2014, then moved to federal court, where a judge ordered that it be returned to the state level.

The families were given a glimmer of hope when a State Superior Court judge, Barbara N. Bellis, permitted the case to approach a trial before she ultimately dismissed it. She found that the claims fell “squarely within the broad immunity” provided by federal law.

In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which restricts lawsuits against gun sellers and makers by granting industrywide immunity from blame when one of their products is used in a crime. Lawmakers behind the measure cited a need to foil what they described as predatory and politically driven litigation.

The law does allow exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of so-called negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it.

In the lawsuit, the families pushed to broaden the scope to include the manufacturer, Remington, which was named along with a wholesaler and a local retailer in the suit.

The lawsuit said that the companies were wrong to entrust an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield.

Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.
As highlighted above, one point that they're pushing is that the public should not have access to AR-15s.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2019, 12:57 PM #64
Boxcab's Avatar
Boxcab Boxcab is offline
MSI EM
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: AA County
Posts: 5,752
Boxcab Boxcab is offline
MSI EM
Boxcab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: AA County
Posts: 5,752
Quote:
The lawsuit said that the companies were wrong to entrust an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield.
I believe that blame falls on the Government, as they approve or disapprove the buyer at the time of sale. Once the State and Federal Governments stuck their noses into it, they own it. They should be suing .gov, not the manufacturers.







.
__________________
Quote:
"I do find myself cursing the ghosts of the politicians and gun owners who let our 2nd Amendment rights degrade over the past century. Seven plus decades of being afraid to enthusiastically challenge any new ban against our gun rights has proven to be very foolish. Your rights will not preserve themselves; they must be pursued, secured and vigilantly maintained."
Boxcab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2019, 05:14 PM #65
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,852
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 17,852
One thing that I don't get about this suit is that Adam Lanza didn't buy the AR-15. His mother did. He killed her to get access to it. He might have killed someone else to get access to their firearms if his mother didn't have one. He might have also decided to make a bomb instead. Thus, if I understand the article about the lawsuit correctly, they need to argue that his mom shouldn't have been legally sold to on the grounds that they're suing ("The law does allow exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of so-called negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it.").

As per the weapon that Lanza used, this anti 2A CNN article from late 2017 states that 15 million AR-15 rifles are privately owned in the US ...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/healt...rnd/index.html

They cite an NRA-ILA link that's currently broken. Two years prior, the NRA-ILA suggested 5 million were privately held.

At 5 or 15 million, it's a popular rifle design, one that other sources indicate is the best selling of centerfire rifles sold in the US.

Yet, the frequency in which they are used in crimes is relatively low. Many, many more people are killed by a 22LR round annually than a 223 or 5.56 projectile. After 22LR, centerfire pistol calibers dominate the numbers in homicide use. Pistols are easy to hide, so this is no surprise.

However we will continue to see AR-15 rifles used in homicides because they are prevalent, just like Toyotas will be well represented in getaways from bank robberies.

Lanza was an aberration. His mother made unfortunate choices that led to a horrible tragedy. Lanza was sufficiently disturbed and motivated that he likely would have made some attempt in some manner to harm people even if they didn't own firearms. He was even willing to kill his mom to do it. It's really too bad that he wasn't institutionalized at some point earlier.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2019, 05:41 PM #66
Nanook's Avatar
Nanook Nanook is offline
F-notso-NG-anymore
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: MD when I have to, AK when I can
Posts: 2,239
Images: 4
Nanook Nanook is offline
F-notso-NG-anymore
Nanook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: MD when I have to, AK when I can
Posts: 2,239
Images: 4
Except the basic/original design was modified FOR military use. They can suck it.
__________________
NRA/VFW Life Member
Former NRA LE Firearms Instructor
USN RET
ABYC Certified Master Technician

Have you taken a fence-sitter shooting today?
Nanook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2019, 06:21 PM #67
Racer Doug14's Avatar
Racer Doug14 Racer Doug14 is offline
Thread killer
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Millers Maryland
Posts: 6,778
Racer Doug14 Racer Doug14 is offline
Thread killer
Racer Doug14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Millers Maryland
Posts: 6,778
He stole it after murdering its owner. It wasn't marketed to him. It was convenient.
__________________
NRA
MSI
24th ID,C Co.3rd ENG Bat.'89-'93
Racer Doug14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2019, 08:01 PM #68
Sling Blade Sling Blade is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 24,064
Sling Blade Sling Blade is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 24,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by fidelity View Post
Here's more on the ruling ...

Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability
https://nyti.ms/2CiMz8s



As highlighted above, one point that they're pushing is that the public should not have access to AR-15s.


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
That horseshit implies that soldiers is bein issued Bushies, and we all know damn well that ain’t happenin. This slip-and-fall parasite lawyer’s get rich quick scheme oughta fail for that reason alone.
Sling Blade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2019, 08:52 PM #69
Melnic's Avatar
Melnic Melnic is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: HoCo
Posts: 7,394
Melnic Melnic is online now
Senior Member
Melnic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: HoCo
Posts: 7,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by fidelity View Post
One thing that I don't get about this suit is that Adam Lanza didn't buy the AR-15. His mother did. He killed her to get access to it.
Exactly my thought, but that unfortunately does not stop law suits.
Civil Law suits are like fake news. If people believe it, its true/guilty
Melnic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2019, 09:34 AM #70
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is offline
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nunya County
Posts: 45,313
swinokur swinokur is offline
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nunya County
Posts: 45,313
The 1A is dead
__________________
swinokur is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service