SCOTUS handed down one of the most dangerous rulings against 2ND Amendment & the gun industry

[awshoot]

If the company was illegally advertising then it needs to go to trial. Remington will win even if in appeal. However not going to trial makes the law weaker.

This is good in the long run. Remember though they make the R51 and forcthat alone they should face corporate legal death.

No, the point of the law is to prevent trial - to dismiss actions. Allowing the case to go to trial is directly contrary to the purpose of the law and thus cannot make it stronger, it can only harm it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7902

(a) In general
A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

(b) Dismissal of pending actions
A qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.

The purpose section of the law is easy to read and understandable: 15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Illegal advertising? What exactly is that? The man card ad?

Here is what is illegal -- from the context it sounds like intentionally marketing the guns to attract prohibited purchasers is rightly a no-no, as is doing a bad job with the required record keeping: 15 U.S. Code § 7903 - Definitions

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18;

 

[NW Backpacker]

Illegal advertising? What exactly is that? The man card ad?

Here is what is illegal -- from the context it sounds like intentionally marketing the guns to attract prohibited purchasers is rightly a no-no, as is doing a bad job with the required record keeping: 15 U.S. Code § 7903 - Definitions

Did the Newtown shooter's mother get her man card when she bought the gun?
Did Remington sell her the gun, or did she buy it thru a dealer?
How do you "attract prohibited purchasers" when there are BGCs for every new gun?

 

[rdb241]

Did anybody notice at 4:14 into the vid they show and add that is supposed to be an AR but the pic is of a SCAR-15 made in Europe.

 

[eightyeight mag]

Looks like a Bushmaster acr to me

 

[rdb241]

Never heard of an ACR.

 

[revjen45]

Doesn't Loser Pays apply to PLCAA?

We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer | From the Trenches World Report

Huffington Post – by Lonnie and Sandy Phillips We have been getting a lot of questions about our lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, the online company...

fromthetrenchesworldreport.com

In ~2015 Lonnie and Sandy Phillips sued Lucky Gunner over the Aurora CO shooting and lost. Now they are whining about being on the hook for >$200K to pay L.G.'s legal expenses.
In the end I think Remington will prevail and go after them.
And all the usual suspects will rend their garments and throw a tantrum about how heartless it is of our side to recover expenses.

 

[Alexx1401]

Doesn't Loser Pays apply to PLCAA?

We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer | From the Trenches World Report

Huffington Post – by Lonnie and Sandy Phillips We have been getting a lot of questions about our lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, the online company...

fromthetrenchesworldreport.com

In ~2015 Lonnie and Sandy Phillips sued Lucky Gunner over the Aurora CO shooting and lost. Now they are whining about being on the hook for >$200K to pay L.G.'s legal expenses.
In the end I think Remington will prevail and go after them.
And all the usual suspects will rend their garments and throw a tantrum about how heartless it is of our side to recover expenses.

"We knew the risks of bringing the case. "

Yet now that we lost we want to whine and cry, too damn bad. Pay up

 

[awshoot]

... How do you "attract prohibited purchasers" when there are BGCs for every new gun?

I think what the statute is aiming for are unreputable sellers who intentionally market to criminals -- black marketeers for instance -- those sellers don't get the protection of the law.

 

[awshoot]

Doesn't Loser Pays apply to PLCAA?

We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer | From the Trenches World Report

Huffington Post – by Lonnie and Sandy Phillips We have been getting a lot of questions about our lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, the online company...

fromthetrenchesworldreport.com

In ~2015 Lonnie and Sandy Phillips sued Lucky Gunner over the Aurora CO shooting and lost. Now they are whining about being on the hook for >$200K to pay L.G.'s legal expenses.
In the end I think Remington will prevail and go after them.
And all the usual suspects will rend their garments and throw a tantrum about how heartless it is of our side to recover expenses.

Didn't click but jeez, the headline makes it sound like that bill just came in the mail by surprise. The reality is that they probably went to half a dozen attorneys who turned them down because of the PLCAA, then they finally found a sucker to take their case and now they whine when they face the consequences of their own dogged pursuit of a frivolous case.

 

[Goosebrown]

No, the point of the law is to prevent trial - to dismiss actions. Allowing the case to go to trial is directly contrary to the purpose of the law and thus cannot make it stronger, it can only harm it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7902



The purpose section of the law is easy to read and understandable: 15 U.S. Code § 7901 - Findings; purposes



Illegal advertising? What exactly is that? The man card ad?

Here is what is illegal -- from the context it sounds like intentionally marketing the guns to attract prohibited purchasers is rightly a no-no, as is doing a bad job with the required record keeping: 15 U.S. Code § 7903 - Definitions

The purpose of the law is to block certain suits and allow others. This is one of the cases they wanted to allow. If Remington marketed illegally to minors, there is a case here and it should go to trial. That is the intent.

This is new law and it needs to be tested.

 

[Goosebrown]

...Now they are whining about being on the hook for >$200K to pay L.G.'s legal expenses.
In the end I think Remington will prevail and go after them.

I think you're absolutely right. In the end they're going to pay and the meaning of the law will become more filled out.

I feel for people that lost children but the gun manufacturer isnt the one responsible.

 

[awshoot]

The purpose of the law is to block certain suits and allow others. This is one of the cases they wanted to allow. If Remington marketed illegally to minors, there is a case here and it should go to trial. That is the intent.

This is new law and it needs to be tested.

Show me the ads which market to minors.

 

[Goosebrown]

Show me the ads which market to minors.

I haven't seen any but that doesn't mean they're not any. The plaintiffs get to present evidence and I hope they get trounced. BUT they do have a right to sue (and lose) under this law if they make a case that bushmaster was deceptive.

IF.

It's only Legal Commerce if Bushmaster was following the law.

I'm on your side here but the way they are presenting the case is the exact intent of the law.

Remember the other side of this is the PLCAA has been upheld in this same ruling.

 

[revjen45]

And when Big Green goes after the plaintiffs to recover their expenses the Instigators will whine and shriek about how heartless they are to attack these grieving survivors.
So, even if they lose they get an agitprop victory.

 

[awshoot]

I haven't seen any but that doesn't mean they're not any. The plaintiffs get to present evidence ...

In a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs get to present their evidence and the court views that evidence in a way that is most favorable to the plaintiffs for the sake of argument, and if even then, the case doesn't meet the standard, it gets dismissed.

If you haven't seen any advertisements, why would you think they are marketing to children? Here's one: Bushmaster Firearms, Your Man Card Is Revoked

The argument is that kids who see the ad will think they can be a man too and there is a direct cause link between that ad and Lanza's shooting. I mean seriously? Get real. That's a freakin' stretch that should have been dismissed.

 

[Goosebrown]

In a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs get to present their evidence and the court views that evidence in a way that is most favorable to the plaintiffs for the sake of argument, and if even then, the case doesn't meet the standard, it gets dismissed.

If you haven't seen any advertisements, why would you think they are marketing to children? Here's one: Bushmaster Firearms, Your Man Card Is Revoked

The argument is that kids who see the ad will think they can be a man too and there is a direct cause link between that ad and Lanza's shooting. I mean seriously? Get real. That's a freakin' stretch that should have been dismissed.

I disagree. That is what the law is there to do. There is enough of an argument for the case to proceed

 

[awshoot]

I disagree. That is what the law is there to do. There is enough of an argument for the case to proceed

You disagree about what happens in a motion for summary judgment or you disagree that the ManCard ad was not targeted at children? Remember also, even if the ad is targeted at children, they also have to prove the ad was a proximate cause of the shooting. Are you really making the claim that the there is a direct causal link between that ad and Lanza's actions?

If a kid drove a Ford pickup into a playground full of kids, would Ford be liable because of "Built Ford Tough" ads? I mean, that's exactly what you are supporting here right?

 

[coop44]

The thing is, every manufacturer of anything that could possibly be lethal if misused will be vulnerable. You betcha lawyers want this.
The thing is, the potential for damage to the economy is immense. Imagine 30 thousand lawsuits against car makers per year going back as far as law will allow. What about all of the other makers of misused items that cause deaths, drugs, boats, forks, knives, meat, candy, actually almost anything. They will all be vulnerable, because lawyers love nothing more than Case Law.
if the law suit is successful it could destroy the USA as we know it.

 

[Goosebrown]

You disagree about what happens in a motion for summary judgment or you disagree that the ManCard ad was not targeted at children? Remember also, even if the ad is targeted at children, they also have to prove the ad was a proximate cause of the shooting. Are you really making the claim that the there is a direct causal link between that ad and Lanza's actions?

If a kid drove a Ford pickup into a playground full of kids, would Ford be liable because of "Built Ford Tough" ads? I mean, that's exactly what you are supporting here right?

Maybe ford would be culpable. That's not under the PLCAA.

The point is THAT is what the courts should determine. They've already thrown out the rest of the case because of the PLCAA and I think they'll do the same with this part of the case. But the plaintiffs have enough to go on for the case to move forward.