Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's extremely relevant because if one argues that this gun does not belong in the hands of civilians the same argument can be made about any semi auto gun.
I think it's extremely relevant because if one argues that this gun does not belong in the hands of civilians the same argument can be made about any semi auto gun.
baby steps..... How does one think they pull so much over on us, that wish to remain free from Government bondage.
That has no bearing in the lawsuit, the basis is Remington's promotion of their weapon's likeness to guns used in combat that has been their selling point.
I think it's extremely relevant because if one argues that this gun does not belong in the hands of civilians the same argument can be made about any semi auto gun.
The court will decide that argument when it comes up in the future, this very narrow for now.
That has no bearing in the lawsuit, the basis is Remington's promotion of their weapon's likeness to guns used in combat that has been their selling point.
YES, LOL....you admit that because it looks like something, then therefore it is.....
No but they could probably sue the Ford owner if not the same person. In this case, mom would be the owner and mom is dead since he shot and killed her with her own gun.
It's really sad that despite the facts that gun owners are more likely to die from gun violence, this keeps happening. Like a drug user thinking "yeah but addiction won't happen to ME."
Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the law "does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians," The Associated Press reports.
I am certainly not against personal ownership of guns, but I draw the line on civilians owning military weapons.
Automatics are used in the military.
Semi autos are used in the military.
Bolt actions are used in the military.
Lever actions.. military.
Flintlocks.. military.
Matchlock.. military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
You can actually sue a pressure cooker company but their primary use is cooking, not so with guns and manufacturers enjoy a legal shield not available to most companies. Hand guns are a larger problem but these rifles are very popular in mass murders, no matter where you draw the line it will be questioned but a normal person doesn't need 20 round clips.
I don't see them winning this case but the fact is that the gun companies do promote the ability of the guns though marketing.
Cars are marketed as being fast and agile all the time. No court in its right mind would agree that Ford is responsible for the driver of a mustang crashing into a crowd at Cars and Coffee events.
As for the 20 or more rounds and semi auto rifles just look to the goverment. In their purchase order that put AR-15 with 30 round magazines as a "personal defense weapon" and the FBI, IIRC, won't even consider hand guns with less then 15 round capacity for protection.
The court will decide that argument when it comes up in the future, this very narrow for now.
Amen. Contrary to gun nuts biggest dream, we are a nation of laws for all, and this ruling simply destroyed treating this industry in a special way. Any business can be sued, and that is how it should be. Let the chips fall where they may.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.