Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-13-2019, 11:13 AM
Usmc0844spare Usmc0844spare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWalt View Post
If that is the ad the plaintiffs are relaying on then it would take many illogical leaps of logic to come to the conclusion that it promotes illegal violence towards another. I see nothing "cringey" about that ad. Having your "man card reissued" can mean anything to any individual, it doesn't scream "commit murder en mass".
I agree that it does not promote mass murder. However, I disagree that it can be interpreted to mean anything other than "FEEL LIKE A MAN WITH YOUR AR15!"

"Man card" is a pretty well established bit of slang.

Going back to the actual issue, it mentions other stuff besides that ad ("promotional materials" I believe they called it) which I tried to locate but could not, but the quoted passages are pretty cringey as well.

As others have pointed out, good luck proving that the kid ever saw or was influenced by that material... and I hope that alone sinks the case. Of course, for all we know, that little psycho f*** might have had the ad blown up and framed on his wall...

Anyway, lest anyone have any doubts, I disagree with SCOTUS on this decision and agree that it has dire implications.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-13-2019, 2:50 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,591
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If this was about advertising the plaintiff would have sought to have legislation passed that would limited the kinds of ads that could be placed. this about harming gun businesses and it will spread to cover any kind of business that is involved with guns.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-13-2019, 3:40 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,792
iTrader: 163 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usmc0844spare View Post
I agree that it does not promote mass murder. However, I disagree that it can be interpreted to mean anything other than "FEEL LIKE A MAN WITH YOUR AR15!"

"Man card" is a pretty well established bit of slang.

Going back to the actual issue, it mentions other stuff besides that ad ("promotional materials" I believe they called it) which I tried to locate but could not, but the quoted passages are pretty cringey as well.

As others have pointed out, good luck proving that the kid ever saw or was influenced by that material... and I hope that alone sinks the case. Of course, for all we know, that little psycho f*** might have had the ad blown up and framed on his wall...

Anyway, lest anyone have any doubts, I disagree with SCOTUS on this decision and agree that it has dire implications.
Even if he did, how can a manufacturer be reasonably able to predict or responsible for what goes on in a SICK mind? And why should it (or anyone) be required to do so?
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23683474
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-13-2019, 8:20 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,428
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usmc0844spare View Post
I agree that it does not promote mass murder. However, I disagree that it can be interpreted to mean anything other than "FEEL LIKE A MAN WITH YOUR AR15!"

"Man card" is a pretty well established bit of slang.

Going back to the actual issue, it mentions other stuff besides that ad ("promotional materials" I believe they called it) which I tried to locate but could not, but the quoted passages are pretty cringy as well.

As others have pointed out, good luck proving that the kid ever saw or was influenced by that material... and I hope that alone sinks the case. Of course, for all we know, that little psycho f*** might have had the ad blown up and framed on his wall...

Anyway, lest anyone have any doubts, I disagree with SCOTUS on this decision and agree that it has dire implications.
A fly in the ointment so far as "man card" is concerned in this case is the fact that a woman bought the AR in question, not "the man".

If the CT case succeeds on facts it may do for the AR what "Unsafe at Any Speed" did for the Corvair.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-14-2019, 8:59 AM
captn-tin captn-tin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fairfield
Posts: 610
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
An even better question: How many times has CT sued Ferrari, Lamborghini, Toyota, Ford, Dodge, or anyone else marketing insanely powerful sports cars and "drag racers"? Honestly, look at just Dodge. The Challenger Hellcat has 707Hp! Nobody NEEDS that much power? Look at their ads, always zooming around, acting like race car drivers on public streets.

How many have died in street racing accidents because of these overpowered Drag Racers? It is deceptive and unfair to market these passenger cars using race car imagery! They are deliberately setting up a Drag Racer image to sell these needlessly powerful cars! Won't someone think of the children!!!

/s
The fine print probably reads Do not try this at home.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-14-2019, 9:35 AM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 458
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanbo View Post
Anyone know how the Supreme Court Justices voted? Was it 5 to 4? Who was the trader?

There was no SCOTUS decision. They denied certiorari. It takes 4 justices to grant cert. And I believe you mean “traitor.”

There is no way of knowing why they didn’t get 4 votes, but it is possible that any justices in favor of doing so didn’t feel confident they could get 5 votes to overturn, so granting cert would hurt the cause rather than help it.
__________________
IAALBNYL, DNROTAALA: I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer. Do Not Rely On The Above As Legal Advice.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-14-2019, 9:39 AM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 458
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SelfGovernor View Post
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, relax, and meditate on what the Role of the US Supreme Court is,...



That is Judicial review of lower court decisions and whether or not government operation is lawful based on the Constitution. Going directly to SCOTUS with a civil issue before it has adjudicated is generally not accepted as long as I've watched.



Until a court makes a judgement that is deemed Unconstitutional by SCOTUS, there is nothing for SCOTUS to do here.



So behind closed doors, the Lib Justices are thinking...(Constitution be dammed, We hate guns... NO)



The Conservative Justices are thinking, (Hey Wheres the beef?... NO)



So, Remington has to defend themselves in state court and use the Law as a defense. If they loose, now they have reason to appeal...up to SCOTUS.

Remington didn’t go directly to SCOTUS. To appeal to SCOTUS from state courts, an appellant must appeal from the state court of last resort, which they did (it was a petition for review of a Connecticut Supreme Court denial on the immunity issue).
__________________
IAALBNYL, DNROTAALA: I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer. Do Not Rely On The Above As Legal Advice.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-14-2019, 9:42 AM
Guninator's Avatar
Guninator Guninator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: OC
Posts: 458
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
There are a lot of people on here that need to read (or re-read) Sarabellums post above (#30).

Actually there are several legal errors in that post.
__________________
IAALBNYL, DNROTAALA: I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer. Do Not Rely On The Above As Legal Advice.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:23 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 302
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

<sigh> Feel free to post something that clarifies then. My point is that half the people posting here still don't understand what the suit is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guninator View Post
Actually there are several legal errors in that post.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-14-2019, 10:29 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
<sigh> Feel free to post something that clarifies then. My point is that half the people posting here still don't understand what the suit is about.
Folks aren’t getting it because:
  • This is a very technical, non intuitive legal issue.

  • People are relying on news media for information. But news media pretty much always gets this type of technical stuff wrong. To understand this kind of thing one (1) needs to read the actual opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court; and (2) have sufficient foundational knowledge.

Sarabellum understands this. See post 30. Also, follow the link in that post to an earlier post of mine (and follow the link in my post to a post in which I outline how a lawsuit works).

The plaintiffs will get their chance in court to prove their allegations, and that won’t be easy. And Remington can still make its PLCAA arguments. All that has happened is that the Supreme Court has declined to entertain an interlocutory appeal. And that’s an expected result because appellate courts generally won’t entertain an interlocutory appeal; they prefer to wait for a dispositive order.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-16-2019, 9:34 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,431
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As I said previously...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
My suspicion is that the underlying point to this lawsuit is "information" which can be gleaned in discovery, particularly given, as you note, the long-shot nature in that Lanza did not legally obtain the firearms. As noted in the AP piece...

Quote:
...The families' lawyer, Joshua Koskoff, said the next step will be the discovery phase in which Remington will be compelled to disclose certain internal company documents.

"The families are just universally happy with this result," he said. "They have wanted nothing more out of this case than to shed light on the conduct of the manufacturer of the weapon that was the source of taking the lives of their loved ones."...
Published a few minutes ago by the AP - Sandy Hook lawsuit could force Remington to open books

Quote:
...Remington is widely expected to win the case, but critics of the gun industry are eyeing what they see as a significant outcome even in the face of defeat: getting the gunmaker to open its books about how it markets firearms.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are certain to request that Remington turn over volumes of documents as part of the discovery phase, providing a rare window into the inner-workings of how a major gun manufacturer markets its weapons. Those materials might include company emails, memos, business plans and corporate strategies, or anything that might suggest the company purposely marketed the firearm that may have compelled the shooter to use the weapon to carry out the slaughter...
Be prepared for the inevitable 'media spin' on that information if Remington can't sufficiently limit discovery.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 11-16-2019 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-17-2019, 7:01 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,723
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Let us stick to the case itself, rather than discussion of personal qualifications.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-20-2019, 10:40 AM
captn-tin captn-tin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fairfield
Posts: 610
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
An even better question: How many times has CT sued Ferrari, Lamborghini, Toyota, Ford, Dodge, or anyone else marketing insanely powerful sports cars and "drag racers"? Honestly, look at just Dodge. The Challenger Hellcat has 707Hp! Nobody NEEDS that much power? Look at their ads, always zooming around, acting like race car drivers on public streets.

How many have died in street racing accidents because of these overpowered Drag Racers? It is deceptive and unfair to market these passenger cars using race car imagery! They are deliberately setting up a Drag Racer image to sell these needlessly powerful cars! Won't someone think of the children!!!

/s
Lets not forget that cars are used 99.99% of the time to get the gun carrying bad guy to where he - she carries out their act of gun violence. Why should bad persons have such easy access to getaway cars? 707hp gets them there faster, and easily out runs the cops. We must also sue the networks that advertise these killer cars. SARC

Last edited by captn-tin; 11-20-2019 at 1:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-11-2019, 4:43 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,431
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun-maker set for trial in 2021

Quote:
A Connecticut judge said Wednesday a lawsuit by families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims against Remington Arms will go to trial in September of 2021...
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-06-2020, 4:50 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 257
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Case page for Soto v. Bushmaster in CT state court

All of the documents are free and it has a (free) option to receive email notifications about new filings.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-06-2020, 5:22 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,431
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Case page for Soto v. Bushmaster in CT state court

All of the documents are free and it has a (free) option to receive email notifications about new filings.
Good stuff.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-13-2020, 3:43 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,431
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Newtown families in lawsuit get access to shooter's computer

Quote:
...A state Superior Court judge in Waterbury, Connecticut, signed off on a stipulated agreement Thursday between the families and Remington that will allow a forensic computer expert to examine Adam Lanzas' computer and present digital images of his findings to both sides.

The families are looking for evidence of Lanza's exposure to advertisements for weapons...
Here's the stipulation and here's the order.

Readers might also wish to note that a request to amend the complaint was filed in reaction to a March 2019 ruling.

Quote:
...The proposed Second Amended Complaint removes the negligent entrustment claims and simplifies and streamlines the CUTPA/Wrongful Death allegations.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-13-2020, 5:41 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 636
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Still a bull**** case, but thank you for the update
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-13-2020, 8:10 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,948
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I seriously doubt they will find any advertisements or web pages containing any advertisements or links to advertisements. I'm guessing what they will find are lots of hours playing video games.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-14-2020, 1:30 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 274
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I reckon his mother and video games were his primary exposure routes to firearms. No subscriptions to Guns + Ammo, not an NRA member, etc.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-14-2020, 3:54 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWalt View Post
I seriously doubt they will find any advertisements or web pages containing any advertisements or links to advertisements. I'm guessing what they will find are lots of hours playing video games.
It should not matter what ads are on HIS computer--he did not purchase the rifle. They should be looking at mom's computer where she was perusing all the AR ads because owning one made her feel "like a real man."

Separately, since ads change all of the time, unless the ad appears in print media, how are they going to be able to establish which ads were presented to the shooter or the mother? I think it is more likely that she got her information on which rifle to buy from her LGS. But maybe they will be able to review her search history to see what reviews she read (none of which, I am reasonably certain, promoted acting like a serial killer or a militia member.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:15 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical