If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Isn't there an actual law that prevents these lawsuits though? The way I'm reading it is SCOTUS didn't actually vote on the constitutionality of said law?
And the wireless provider.
Isn't there an actual law that prevents these lawsuits though? The way I'm reading it is SCOTUS didn't actually vote on the constitutionality of said law?
The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public. Gunman Adam Lanza used it to kill 20 first graders and six educators. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. Lanza was 20 years old.
The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public.
HIGHLY unlikely to be the case. Unfortunately, it is more likely that this case, if allowed to proceed, will not be ruled by law.It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.
That is a matter of argument, but the law says otherwise.
HIGHLY unlikely to be the case. Unfortunately, it is more likely that this case, if allowed to proceed, will not be ruled by law.
Nice, now the next time some driver in a sports car hits me I guess this means I can sue the manufacturer because of the targeted marketing.
At least that's how I'm reading it.
The way I understand it, this isn't a PLCAA issue. They're suing based on some Connecticut law that says you can't promote violence in advertising products and Remington had an ad that explicitly portrayed/described the rifle as being good for killing your enemies.Isn't there an actual law that prevents these lawsuits though? The way I'm reading it is SCOTUS didn't actually vote on the constitutionality of said law?
I’m as concerned as anyone else about this turn of events, but we should keep in mind that SCOTUS only agrees to hear roughly 1 out of every 100 (maybe it’s even less now) cases that are appealed to it. Hopefully they take the next one that is similar to it. That said, I’m not overly confident with Roberts as the Chief Justice.The way I understand it, this isn't a PLCAA issue. They're suing based on some Connecticut law that says you can't promote violence in advertising products and Remington had an ad that explicitly portrayed/described the rifle as being good for killing your enemies.
As long as they market the car as fast. (Insert your favorite hater comment on some sort of fast car.)
The families should lose with prejudice - HIS MOMMY BOT THE GUN! But the suit shouldn't move forward in the first place. Period. The time for common sense is over.
The way I understand it, this isn't a PLCAA issue. They're suing based on some Connecticut law that says you can't promote violence in advertising products and Remington had an ad that explicitly portrayed/described the rifle as being good for killing your enemies.
I’m as concerned as anyone else about this turn of events, but we should keep in mind that SCOTUS only agrees to hear roughly 1 out of every 100 (maybe it’s even less now) cases that are appealed to it. Hopefully they take the next one that is similar to it. That said, I’m not overly confident with Roberts as the Chief Justice.
Apparently, advertisements like this are being used as an example. I don't see anything that I would consider inappropriate. Tacticoolie perhaps, but not out of line.
There is no hopefully here, this is awful. This precedent will now apply to any future cases before SCOTUS ever hears another similar one. It will also embolden others to file similar claims.
We can all discuss the merits of the case: Lanza didn't buy the gun so advertising din't affect him, etc. but the merits don't matter, all that matters now is what the jury says matters and that will most likely will end with eight or nine zeros after it. Remington is screwed as are the rest of the gun manufacturers.
Added more in the edits above.Unfortunately that is you.......Majority of this country was already converted to sheep who panic when sheep dog turns his head chasing a flee. They think wolf must be around the corner.
Added more in the edits above.
The question is, and should be, does this and other advertisements promote illegal conduct? Stating the rifle is "mission ready/capable" is not positioning it for an illegal purpose.
Not sure if everybody reading this realizes it has gotten worse. This thread was about the CT Supreme Court rulings.... Well the US Supreme Court has spoken .... and it is not good news.
Apparently, advertisements like this are being used as an example. I don't see anything that I would consider inappropriate. Tacticoolie perhaps, but not out of line. Here's the thing though: Tacticoolie is okay. This is what this is all about. 2A guarantees your ability to punch holes in more then just paper when the need arises. If Tacticoolie advertising is a basis for an unfair advertising suit, then all defensive pistol ads are included too.
So much for MuH 2A sCoTuS PiCkS!!!
Using the term "Combat" (Adaptive Combat Rifle) will come back to bite them and the rest of us in the ass. Nobody needs a combat rifle... blah blah blah. Playing the "Assault" rifle/weapon misnomer turnaround won't work when the freakin' manufacturer calls it an Adaptive Combat Rifle.
Correct. If sheep wants combat it should sign up with police or military.
"In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' "
Yeah, I'd say the days of correcting people on the mis-use of the term "Assault Rifle" are over.
Section 12What would happen to your LTC Application if you would state on it that you are planning to eliminate "the forces of opposition"?
I think everyone still hates this picture. Does anyone have a rundown as to how the vote came down? Which Justices ruled against Remington?They brought this photo out of the archives...
So bizarre on so many levels...
View attachment 312346
Time to sue bars and any place that sells alcohol when a drunk driver kills or hurts someone. Along with the maker of the beverage, along with the company that delivered it. etc.. Also tool makers for such dangerous devices. Knife makers, baseball bat makers, the list just goes on and on.