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.
Ever seen what happens when someone tries to sue the government, when private companies with deep pockets are also involved?
The path of least resistance.The Sandy Hook victims families have sued the government run school district for allowing this to happen. I wonder what that settlement was?
Free Speech does, yet one can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, or distribute kiddie porn. No amendment is open ended.
So many people use this example, yet so few know or understand it's origins. The complete history is too long to recite here, but let's go over a few of the bullet points.
Why is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater a legitimate limitation on our first Amendment rights? According to the Supreme Court ruling that set the precedent, it's because: (1) the person knows that his words will cause immediate harm, (2) the person uses his speech solely to cause harm, and (3) that the end result is predictable, that the speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
Certainly if there were actually a fire, you wouldn't be prohibited from shouting it, nor would you be prohibited from saying it if there were no one else in the theater to begin with. It's only a permissable limitation of our free speech rights under very narrowly tailored circumstances.
Further still, a person retains his or her freedom of speech, right up until the point he or she decides to abuse it. For instance, we don't ban the use of the word "fire" outright, or muzzle all theater goers prior to enterring a movie theater in order to pre-emptively prevent them from shouting "fire".
So please, anti-gunners, stop using this analogy to justify all the limitations you want to foist upon Second Amendment rights, it doesn't equate.
The biggest distinction between the firearm industry and the Tobacco industry, is the Tobacco industry intentionally made a product that was both harmful & made it addictive, and then advertised as cool. The firearm industry knows it is making weapons, any everyone knows that whatever accessories are put on a firearm, weather they think it makes the firearm "LOOK ANY COOLER" or not; does not make that weapon more deadly. Even a scope does not make a rifle any deadlier, it simply allows a person to see a target at a longer distance.
This suit would not have been allowed to go forward if Adam Lanza has used a standard Remington 870 pump shotgun with a 26' barrel, nothing cool about that, looks like just any other shotgun. The fact that this law suit is being allowed is because the press has turned the AR-15 rifle, in to the hand of the devil. And now many people believe it is an instrument of evil. It is just an object. there still had to be a person pulling the trigger.
People need to do a little research, on BOTH sides. It has not yet been determined whether this suit "can go forward" despite the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act... The only thing the judge ruled on is that she has the authority to make the decision. Legal experts say this suit is still likely to fail to avoid the hurdle of the PLCAA and will be thrown out.
I don't see any protections for Joe's Pub, automobile manufacturers or any other companies being passed by congress, just gun manufacturers.
Fairly unique legislation.
Incorrect....
In 1994 lawmakers approved the General Aviation Revitalization Act to stop lawsuits for design defects against aircraft manufacturers whose planes flew without problems for more than 18 years. The legislation has been viewed by industry groups, legal scholars, and the Government Accountability Office as vital to restoring the industries viability.
In 1998 congress passed the Biomaterials Assurance Access Act to prevent suppliers of raw materials used in medical devices from being sued for defects in those devices.
Then they should be suing the School/Teacher's Union for the same if that is their "angle". They failed to identify, stop and disarm the shooter. They also failed to lock down or evacuate the kids.
The path of least resistance.The Sandy Hook victims families have sued the government run school district for allowing this to happen. I wonder what that settlement was?
Makes one wonder what the liability is with denying people the ability to defend themselves and not having a personal body guard for every individual that enters the building.
People need to do a little research, on BOTH sides. It has not yet been determined whether this suit "can go forward" despite the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act... The only thing the judge ruled on is that she has the authority to make the decision. Legal experts say this suit is still likely to fail to avoid the hurdle of the PLCAA and will be thrown out.
Thrown out I think should be the best course of action for this law suit. Law suits should be based on facts, like breach of contract, a defective product, poor design that results on the harm of loss of life due to the poor design. Not based on not based on someone's political views.
If the manufacturer knew that there was a risk of the gun getting into a criminal's hands, and did nothing or not enough about it, they would absolutely be liable. Proving that was the case, however, is a long shot.
That's total nonsense. There is always a risk. There is a risk, a theoretical possibility, that the nylons on the shelf at Walmart might one day be used to strangle someone to death. Should Walmart be held liable? Of course not. Nor should the nylon manufacturer.
If the manufacturer knew that there was a risk of the gun getting into a criminal's hands, and did nothing or not enough about it, they would absolutely be liable. Proving that was the case, however, is a long shot.
I have to ask for clarification:
Is a criminal a person?
Is criminal mentioned in the 2nd amendment?
Did you know, everyone that signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were criminals.
Thus the reason, criminals is not part of the 2nd amendment. The founders knew, they were criminals and forbidden to have weapons at one time too. The shall not be infringed, was because governments can make criminals out of the people.
What specific "people", does the 2nd amendment give the government the authority to restrict arms from?
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.
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.
