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.
No it doesn't mean you can enact your examples and then sue. Nice try at whatever you are attempting but no cigar.
Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled the suit could go forward under that state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a statute aimed at harmful marketing, in this case marketing not of the weapon itself but the use of the weapon as a potential tool for “offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal.
So lets see the evidence of this "harmful marketing". Shooting ANY gun at a person is engaging in offensive military style combat. It's a meaningless phrase. And the "potential" qualifier you used is entirely dependent on the actions of the person holding the weapon. Not the gun itself. And not the manufacturer. This lawsuit will not go anywhere.
Gun manufacturers can't be sued for the product itself unless it was defective etc. It's pointless exercise and the law was implemented to prevent frivolous lawsuits. e.g. you wouldn't sue the car company if someone purposely ran some over with it.
Personally I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere, the examples of ads I have seen simply proclaim it's effectiveness.
You have too much common sense something this court seems to be lacking.
If you shoot a gun and it explodes in your hand due to faulty manufacturing then you have a lawsuit against them.
If you shoot the same gun with bullets that you loaded yourself and made too powerful causing the gun to explode then only you are to blame.
If I decide to drive my truck into a crowd can the survivors sue Ford? What if my truck was stolen and used to do the same thing, can the survivors sue me because I forgot to lock the door and it was easy fro the thief to steal it?
I think this lawsuit against Remington is ridiculous. The product (the gun) was used in a way that it was not advertised or designed to do and in a unlawful manner.
They are chipping away at the Second amendment. Imagine if the law suit is successful and Remington is forced to pay out millions of dollars that puts the 200 year old company out of business and worse opens the doors for anyone under any circumstance able to sue gun manufacturers.
I can see it now where criminals would sue not only the Police but the gun company that made the gun that the cops used to stop him.
The federal government isn't going to allow arms makers to be sued out of existence by gun control activists. A loss of manufacturing capacity for arms would threaten our national security in the event of a major war. My guess is this will end up in the federal courts and the lawsuit will fail.
Not a good analogy. Its more like suing a car company for marketing the car as suitable for RACING, which may be illegal on the public roads, but perfectly legal on a private road, or a racetrack.
Besides, this will be overturned due to judicial malfeasance. They are biased and it showed in that they automatically concluded, without applying any standard of scrutiny, that all gun combat is military (which is totally false) and that all military combat is offensive (which is also false). And in fact, military operations often involve a mixture of offensive and defensive operations even in the same theater, and even in the same field of engagement. So for a court to make these characterizations is biased, and its malfeasance. They pretend to know the aspirations of the advertisers, as well as the actual effect or perception of the audience.
This is not what courts are for.
It's a perfectly reasonable analogy.
I doubt anyone sues gun manufacturers for adverts that show guns and hunting going together.
Especially if the people in the ad are wearing safety gear, orange hats/vests, etc.
But, advertise a gun pointed at a noise in your house at night and then when someone gets shot by accident in a house at night? You might get sued.
It's about associating one thing with the other. Do people drink and drive? Sure they do. You just don't want to associate the two. Even if a luxury car conjures images of people in fine clothes and jewels, out on the town drinking champagne.
Your racing example is a tough one because unless you advertise a car as suitable for drag racing, then someone dies trying to drag race in your car, you're probably not going to be open to litigation. People need to use accelerator pedals while driving cars.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Kids are allowed to own and fire rifles in most states while handguns have more state and federal limitations. Marketing to kids and their parents isn't illegal, and like I said, kids owning/shooting firearms and parents buying firearms for them isn't illegal. Using firearms for self defense and marketing them as such also isn't illegal.
It's also not hard to judge shop to originally get the ruling you want. There are partisan polical judges on both sides of the ailse. This csse isn't going anywhere, and IMHO, will end with the plantiff paying Remington's legal fees.
"Self-defense" is a tricky marketing tactic with firearms. It instantly implies the use of deadly force against other human beings.
You could probably advertise self-defense in a woodland setting where there are mountain lions and bears nearby, but advertising it in suburbia is going to be problematic.
And, sure, it's not illegal for parents to buy guns for kids, but it's probably not smart, either.
Teach kids gun safety? Sure. Buy them their own gun? Seems best to wait until they're old enough to legally buy their own.
Teens are unstable, emotionally speaking.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Unearth what documents? The things you gun gabbers see as "rot" and as a problem is perfectly legal and commonly practiced. I also doubt that company executives are sitting around send memos on how to market to criminals who aren't allowed to puchased their products. This is a hige nothing burger that will result in nothing. I'm sure the Firearm companies will appeal the ruling to a less bais judge.
Why assume bias? I mean, most people aren't the "gun grabbers" the NRA wants you to think they are. I'm quite liberal and I have zero problems with responsible gun ownership.
I am not confident that children can responsibly own firearms. Same goes for mentally unstable people, regardless of age.
Or people convicted of violent crimes. Or people who have been through the courts for any sort of domestic abuse.
All these should disqualify a person from owning a weapon that can kill from a distance.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The shooter didn't purchase the gun, so the marketing angle doesn't really make sense.
The argument is that the gun company should be liable because their rifle is depicted in a video game. For those of you who think this is a good argument, I'd point out that the last Grand Theft Auto game had the following common vehicles in it:
Toyota Prius
Chevy Aveo
Dodge Ram
Ford Mustang
Dodge Challenger
VW Beetle
Ford Superduty
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Ford Crown Victoria
Think about that precedent for a moment. If someone is injured by a driver of one of those vehicles, are you OK with holding the auto manufacturer liable?
Ultimately this is much ado about nothing anyways. A federal appeal court will slap the suit down, as they're trying to bypass a federal law exclusively written to disallow this type of lawsuit.
Guns are created to kill people. Cars are not.
Every time the "guns are equal to cars" argument comes up, it strikes me as lazy.
Anything can be weaponized. Guns ARE weapons. That is their ORIGINAL intent.
Societally, when guns get advertised as things you use to shoot humans, it is problematic.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The federal government isn't going to allow arms makers to be sued out of existence by gun control activists. A loss of manufacturing capacity for arms would threaten our national security in the event of a major war. My guess is this will end up in the federal courts and the lawsuit will fail.
Pssshh... get outta here. Even if there were no guns available to the public, the military would always have someone manufacturing them.
Nobody's counting on anyone but the actual military to have weapons. The Joint Chiefs are not sitting around worried that Steve from Skokie can or cannot buy a rifle.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
No it doesn't mean you can enact your examples and then sue. Nice try at whatever you are attempting but no cigar.
Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled the suit could go forward under that state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a statute aimed at harmful marketing, in this case marketing not of the weapon itself but the use of the weapon as a potential tool for “offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal.
Don't gloat too much. Here's what's going to happen: Either the Supreme Court picks this up pronto and buries this suit deep, or the Connecticut Supreme court and the States representatives will feel the sting of what the Second Amendment actually means.
This is yet another attempt to do an end run around the Constitution and people are losing patience with these Northeastern gun grabbers. Think I'm being dramatic?
Any thoughts?
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.
