MNGunTalk.com

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

In response to Sandy Hook shooting..
Scary implications here.

yukonjasper wrote:https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-newtown-shooting-court-remington-20190314-story.html

I response to Sandy Hook shooting..
Scary implications here.

Yep.

I don’t see this holding through the USSC. Ideological stupidity here.

The problem is that the companies that get named have to expend resources to defend themselves until they get a US Supreme Court hearing. The goal of the left is to deplete the resources and force bankruptcy even if they know the idea is not correct, they can kill businesses with frivolous lawsuits.

yukonjasper wrote:The goal of the left is to deplete the resources and force bankruptcy even if they know the idea is not correct, they can kill businesses with frivolous lawsuits.

Exactly.

yukonjasper wrote:The problem is that the companies that get named have to expend resources to defend themselves until they get a US Supreme Court hearing. The goal of the left is to deplete the resources and force bankruptcy even if they know the idea is not correct, they can kill businesses with frivolous lawsuits.

True but it is what it is and it shows why who you vote for really matters.

It’s a very limited ruling.

The sale of the gun is not the issue, but rather the advertising campaign is the issue here. If they can prove that Remington/Bushmaster deliberately targeted a group that would be known to cause trouble just to sell more, they have grounds.

I’m a little torn... if this wins and passes muster, it would dramatically reduce all the advertising we are exposed to on a daily basis, not guns, but food, alcohol, movies, etc.

crbutler wrote:It’s a very limited ruling.

The sale of the gun is not the issue, but rather the advertising campaign is the issue here. If they can prove that Remington/Bushmaster deliberately targeted a group that would be known to cause trouble just to sell more, they have grounds.

I’m a little torn... if this wins and passes muster, it would dramatically reduce all the advertising we are exposed to on a daily basis, not guns, but food, alcohol, movies, etc.

It’s like saying they were advertising to school shooters. I believe he stole the gun.

My point is that whether or not the concept ultimately survives, the wheels of justice grind slowly and are greased with obscene amounts of legal fees.

There won't be bleed over into other areas because the only target here is guns and the need to make them go away. This is one of the few areas where common sense does not prevail.

You don’t know lawyers then.

If this passes SCOTUS muster, it opens the floodgates for all advertising being sued. That’s potentially huge money. Lawyers can’t resist it...

As much as I would like to see the ad folks get castrated, I don’t think this will pass because of that. But if it does, it’s a major impact on the media.

Car makers better watch their backs if this lawsuit turns into a win. With the number of idiots using vehicles to run into crowds, they could be next.

crbutler wrote:It’s a very limited ruling.

The sale of the gun is not the issue, but rather the advertising campaign is the issue here. If they can prove that Remington/Bushmaster deliberately targeted a group that would be known to cause trouble just to sell more, they have grounds.

I’m a little torn... if this wins and passes muster, it would dramatically reduce all the advertising we are exposed to on a daily basis, not guns, but food, alcohol, movies, etc.

There is no torn here. This is akin to suing Hollywood because there movies have glamorized violence and there for influenced someone to act.

If a doctor advises someone to lose weight and that person decides to start running for excersise and let’s say they have a heart condition. That person keeled over by lake of the isles. Should the family sue the doctor?

I gauruntee Remingtons add did not tell anyone to go shoot up a school. Please define what group of people their add targeted. Mothers with special needs children?

They often do.... if the doc should have evaluated them for heart disease or knew they had a likely problem and didn’t evaluate it.

It’s life in modern America.