Whoa, What Was That Again?

[OKTexas]

Serious?

Roe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, & Influence

That's a court decision, not a law. It's effect is to prevent actual laws from being enforced.

.

 

[rightwinger]

It is, separate topics, being treated separately, go freaking figure. And why didn't you answer the question?

.

Afraid I did answer

You seem to be ducking the question of whether states can allow private citizens to enforce laws.

 

[Concerned American]

No the left is trying to circumvent federal law

Nothing new here! Every time the left open their collective mouths, they are trying to circumvent the constitution.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No the left is trying to circumvent federal law, it ain't gonna work.

.

Just like the Trumpistanis did on 1/6. Fuck the federal laws that protect the peaceful transfer of power! Democrcy didn’t get Trump elected so fuck democracy, am I right?

Nothing you say has any credibility you scumbag, unAmerican traitor.

 

[sealybobo]

Wrong again commie, it will say they are two distinct and separate topics.

.

That's what Republicans do. They point out the minute differences. Like when they were so fucking offended that Clinton got a BJ and lied about it, because it was under oath. Today, Trump lies constantly and won't be sworn in. Minutia.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Nothing new here! Every time the left open their collective mouths, they are trying to circumvent the constitution.

Do you support overthrowing the American system of democracy to install Trump as the supreme authority? Cause that is truly circumventing the Constitution.

 

[Anathema]

Didn’t help Remington in the suit by Sandy Hook parents

Remington has neither the money nor the intestinal fortitude to defend themselves in court. They caved to political pressure rather than actually defending themselves.

Unfortunately that means I can no longer use or buy their products going forward.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

California should just secede and wallow in it's unfunded debt

Why would California do that? Sounds like something Texas or some other deep Southern state would do because of ‘states’ rights’. Sounds like something a traitor conservative would do. Again.

 

[task0778]

Yes, there is a law saying exactly that.

.

I checked this out, and it turns out there is such a law.

In 2005, Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by a nearly two‐thirds margin. PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell. Although the dubious legal theories behind these lawsuits only rarely resulted in verdicts against manufacturers and retailers, the mounting costs of the lawsuits began to run gun makers and sellers out of business. Litigation‐induced bankruptcy, it turned out, was an effective way of restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Congress passed PLCAA to end that abuse of the judicial system, providing firearm manufacturers and retailers with immunity against legal claims resulting from the criminal use of their products.

PLCAA is a common‐sense law. Product liability suits are usually focused on actual manufacturing defects. A good backyard grill effectively grills meat, but if it blows up due to a manufacturing defect, then a tort suit is warranted. A good gun shoots reliably and accurately and doesn’t blow up in your hands. While gun manufacturers should and are liable for guns that malfunction, they shouldn’t be liable for making reliable and accurate guns that can be used for mayhem, of course, but can also be used for self‐defense and sporting purposes. Similarly, a swimming pool would be a bad pool if it failed to effectively hold water, but if it is a good swimming pool that holds water it also inevitably increases the risk of drowning. Like a swimming pool, a gun’s good qualities are inexorably tied to the dangerous ones.

https://www.cato.org/blog/protecting-gun-manufacturers-frivolous-lawsuits

Now - in the Remington v Sandy Hook case, the plaintiff focused on the marketing of the gun, the AR-15, which was originally made for combat and for decades only appealed to small civilian market. After the Cerberus private equity firm bought Remington in 2007, it launched aggressive campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter videogames and by touting the AR-15 as an effective killing machine. And sales rose from 100,000 AR-15 in 2005 to 2 million in 2012.
Remington declared bankruptcy for the second time in 2020 and has maintained that gunman Adam Lanza was solely responsible for the horrific tragedy. The company was apparently drowning in debt from legal fees and were in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings, so they settled. Who paid? Their insurance companies.

Despite Remington agreeing to settle, there are sound legal reasons to not hold an entity—that did not make any choice that directly caused harm to others—responsible for the harmful actions its customers may commit. The Second Amendment guarantees a legal right to keep and bear arms, at least for self-defense in the home. This right would be hobbled if gun manufacturers regularly faced liability for the guns they sold being used to harm others. (And guns' ability to harm others, like it or not, is why they are valuable for self-defense and, thus, why the government is prohibited from banning them).

The weapons Remington manufactures and sells are not inherently dangerous absent criminal or negligent actions by the people that buy them. This is made obvious by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the nearly 400 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. never harm anyone at all. Guns can be, and almost always are, used in responsible and harmless ways. Nothing inherent in Remington's making and marketing of them directly harms anyone.

Would Remington have lost the lawsuit if they continued to litigate it? My own guess is probably not, but in the end they are a business, and they made a business decision. I'm sure this tactic will be copied everywhere as the Left tries anyway they can to eliminate guns. As for the California law and the Texas abortion law similarities, it appears the CA proposed law would violate the PLCAA, you gotta have something other than it's an AR-15. To me, the correlation with the abortion law is apples and oranges, but that's what the justice system is for, to decide what is permissible and what isn't. And that correlation may change when the SCOTUS comes out with their ruling on the MS abortion law later this summer.

 

[rightwinger]

Remington has neither the money nor the intestinal fortitude to defend themselves in court. They caved to political pressure rather than actually defending themselves.

Unfortunately that means I can no longer use or buy their products going forward.

Breaks my heart

 

[PoliticalChic]

I checked this out, and it turns out there is such a law.

In 2005, Congress passed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by a nearly two‐thirds margin. PLCAA’s purpose was to curb efforts by gun‐control advocates to circumvent state legislatures and attack Second Amendment rights through a never‐ending series of lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers of firearms to hold them financially responsible for crimes committed using the weapons they make and sell. Although the dubious legal theories behind these lawsuits only rarely resulted in verdicts against manufacturers and retailers, the mounting costs of the lawsuits began to run gun makers and sellers out of business. Litigation‐induced bankruptcy, it turned out, was an effective way of restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Congress passed PLCAA to end that abuse of the judicial system, providing firearm manufacturers and retailers with immunity against legal claims resulting from the criminal use of their products.

PLCAA is a common‐sense law. Product liability suits are usually focused on actual manufacturing defects. A good backyard grill effectively grills meat, but if it blows up due to a manufacturing defect, then a tort suit is warranted. A good gun shoots reliably and accurately and doesn’t blow up in your hands. While gun manufacturers should and are liable for guns that malfunction, they shouldn’t be liable for making reliable and accurate guns that can be used for mayhem, of course, but can also be used for self‐defense and sporting purposes. Similarly, a swimming pool would be a bad pool if it failed to effectively hold water, but if it is a good swimming pool that holds water it also inevitably increases the risk of drowning. Like a swimming pool, a gun’s good qualities are inexorably tied to the dangerous ones.

https://www.cato.org/blog/protecting-gun-manufacturers-frivolous-lawsuits

Now - in the Remington v Sandy Hook case, the plaintiff focused on the marketing of the gun, the AR-15, which was originally made for combat and for decades only appealed to small civilian market. After the Cerberus private equity firm bought Remington in 2007, it launched aggressive campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter videogames and by touting the AR-15 as an effective killing machine. And sales rose from 100,000 AR-15 in 2005 to 2 million in 2012.
Remington declared bankruptcy for the second time in 2020 and has maintained that gunman Adam Lanza was solely responsible for the horrific tragedy. The company was apparently drowning in debt from legal fees and were in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings, so they settled. Who paid? Their insurance companies.

Despite Remington agreeing to settle, there are sound legal reasons to not hold an entity—that did not make any choice that directly caused harm to others—responsible for the harmful actions its customers may commit. The Second Amendment guarantees a legal right to keep and bear arms, at least for self-defense in the home. This right would be hobbled if gun manufacturers regularly faced liability for the guns they sold being used to harm others. (And guns' ability to harm others, like it or not, is why they are valuable for self-defense and, thus, why the government is prohibited from banning them).

The weapons Remington manufactures and sells are not inherently dangerous absent criminal or negligent actions by the people that buy them. This is made obvious by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the nearly 400 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. never harm anyone at all. Guns can be, and almost always are, used in responsible and harmless ways. Nothing inherent in Remington's making and marketing of them directly harms anyone.

Would Remington have lost the lawsuit if they continued to litigate it? My own guess is probably not, but in the end they are a business, and they made a business decision. I'm sure this tactic will be copied everywhere as the Left tries anyway they can to eliminate guns. As for the California law and the Texas abortion law similarities, it appears the CA proposed law would violate the PLCAA, you gotta something other than it's an AR-15. To me, the correlation with the abortion law is apples and oranges, but that's what the justice is for, to decide what is permissible and what isn't. And that correlation may change when the SCOTUS comes out with their ruling on the MS abortion law later this summer.

So sorry about their decision.

Seems to me to be one more business that bowed to fear of the woke crew.

 

[Concerned American]

Do you support overthrowing the American system of democracy to install Trump as the supreme authority? Cause that is truly circumventing the Constitution.

TDS much? Please keep up with the thread. You are a typical democrat moron that figures a thread about the democrats circumventing the constitution on established gun law is about the former POTUS, Jan. 6 and everything but circumvention of existing gun laws. STFU, you're an idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

Afraid I did answer

You seem to be ducking the question of whether states can allow private citizens to enforce laws.

Wrong again skippy, you asked:

Don’t you agree the law should be applied equally to all states?

My answer:

It is,

You commie propagandist never pay attention.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Just like the Trumpistanis did on 1/6. Fuck the federal laws that protect the peaceful transfer of power! Democrcy didn’t get Trump elected so fuck democracy, am I right?

Nothing you say has any credibility you scumbag, unAmerican traitor.

No, you're wrong. But your deflection is duly noted.

.

 

[marvin martian]

Don’t you agree the law should be applied equally to all states?

Abortion isn't a civil right. Gun ownership is.

 

[OKTexas]

That's what Republicans do. They point out the minute differences. Like when they were so fucking offended that Clinton got a BJ and lied about it, because it was under oath. Today, Trump lies constantly and won't be sworn in. Minutia.

Nazi palousey and smukey shumer lie constantly, you don't seem to have a problem with that. Hypocrite much?

.

 

[Anathema]

Breaks my heart

It’s not intended to break your heart. It intended to be a small part of what gun owners do to break Remington’s bottom line as punishment for making this deal.

Sont think it can happen? Just check out what happened to Smith & Wesson after they cut a deal with the Clinton Administration in 2000. The boycott almost put S&W out of business before the company backed away from the agreement.

 

[sealybobo]

Nazi palousey and smukey shumer lie constantly, you don't seem to have a problem with that. Hypocrite much?

.

I watch the news. What lies?

 

[OKTexas]

I watch the news. What lies?

Not going to play games with an obvious idiot. Carry on commie.

.