The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 16, 2019, 08:00 AM   #26
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,908
Key words,

Encourage violent and criminal behavior.

Call me crazy, but I don't think, not getting the group size as advertised, is encouraging Criminal Behavior.
steve4102 is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 08:02 AM   #27
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,908
Rick, is that the actual ad the plaintiff is referring to or are there others?
steve4102 is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 08:32 AM   #28
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
Key words,

Encourage violent and criminal behavior.

Call me crazy, but I don't think, not getting the group size as advertised, is encouraging Criminal Behavior.
And that’s clearly not the case in the hypothetical examples provided.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 08:35 AM   #29
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
And that’s clearly not the case in the hypothetical examples provided.
Exactly.
steve4102 is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 10:26 AM   #30
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
Rick, is that the actual ad the plaintiff is referring to or are there others?
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v0/1000x-1.jpg
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 10:34 AM   #31
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
Rick, is that the actual ad the plaintiff is referring to or are there others?
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v0/1000x-1.jpg

This one's getting a lot of play. It's more aggressive than the "Man Card" ad.

Still a stretch and the entire suit is still flat out prohibited by PLCAA.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 01:53 PM   #32
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natman
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v0/1000x-1.jpg
I must be missing something in that ad. No where do I see "The perfect weapon for mowing down masses of innocent people".
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed.
TomNJVA is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 02:07 PM   #33
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,594
Quote:
No where do I see "The perfect weapon for mowing down masses of innocent people"
It's a rifle designed for sale to the military, so it fits the "weapons of war have no place on our streets" meme. But, as you said, one heck of a stretch.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 04:20 PM   #34
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 13,630
Is that even the rifle that was used at Sandy Hook? Connecticut had an AWB in place at the time -- whatever he had could not have had a flash hider, bayonet lug, or telescoping stock. My fuzzy recollection of photos at the time of the incident is that I was looking at a fairly commonplace M4gery sort of rifle, with a telescoping-looking stock that was probably glued or pinned to to be Connecticut compliant.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 12:17 AM   #35
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,506
There’s a picture of an officer holding up the gun. It had a fixed stock, no flash hider or bayonet lug. Otherwise looked like a cheap AR15. Had scary appendages still front sight post and all
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 12:23 AM   #36
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,506


Tried to post the pic before and it was mega huge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 06:05 AM   #37
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
Specifically, they allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.
I have been searching for the above in the Connecticut unfair trade practices act.

To big and to much legalese for me. Can you guys break it down and show where this "encourage violent and criminal" behavior in advertising is a violation of CT law?
steve4102 is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 06:12 AM   #38
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
There’s a picture of an officer holding up the gun. It had a fixed stock, no flash hider or bayonet lug. Otherwise looked like a cheap AR15. Had scary appendages still front sight post and all
I don't believe that AR in the photo is a Bushmaster.
Looks exactly like my Colt HBAR Match.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/801338500
steve4102 is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 06:16 AM   #39
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,908
I just did a search of Bushmaster AR's and could not find a single BM with that type of fixed stock, straight plain barrel and no flash hider.

I do not believe that firearm is a BM, it's a Colt.
steve4102 is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 06:35 AM   #40
1stmar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,361
Wouldnt they have to prove that the shooter actually read/saw this marketing in order to be influenced by it?
1stmar is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 07:36 AM   #41
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,908
Quote:
Wouldnt they have to prove that the shooter actually read/saw this marketing in order to be influenced by it?
..also he did not purchase the firearms, he sold them and killed the owner.
steve4102 is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 11:51 AM   #42
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,506
Quote:
not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.
I’ve seen that the most in advertisements of movies, tv and video games. Not talking about the movies and such themselves, but the advertisements of those. Can the entertainment industry even promote thier products in Connecticut or are they exempt from those rules too?

I still play video games, not knocking them in any way.
rickyrick is offline  
Old March 17, 2019, 01:55 PM   #43
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 13,630
What's going to be interesting is Remington's next move. Will they go to trial and do their best to shoot down the plaintiffs' arguments in Connecticut superior court, and then appeal to the U.S. courts if they lose -- or will Remington go immediately to the federal courts to try to have the lawsuit thrown out under the federal law protecting lawful trade in firearms?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 27, 2019, 12:29 PM   #44
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,456
Looks like Remington is going the Federal route.....

https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/20....20190404111219
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old May 27, 2019, 12:31 PM   #45
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 13,630
Quote:
Looks like Remington is going the Federal route.....

https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/20....20190404111219
404 Page Not Found
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 27, 2019, 01:13 PM   #46
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,529
Try
https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/201...ok-litigation/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/03/polit...tay/index.html
mehavey is offline  
Old August 3, 2019, 02:03 AM   #47
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
Today Remington filed for cert with he US Supreme Court.

There are horrendous legal defects in the claim being asserted, specifically proof that Lanza saw any ads, was influenced by any ads, or was the purchaser of the firearm in question. And those questions probably cannot be answered because he is dead, as is the original purchaser. Plus there is the fact that he stole the firearm after killing his mother. I really do not see how Plaitniffs can establish causation, but I don't think that that was necessarily the purpose of the litigation. Rather, I think that its real purpose is to establish a legal theory that can be exploited in other cases down the road, i.e., establish as a legal principle an exception to the federal immunity statute. Unless SCOTUS grants cert and overturns the decision, they will have succeeded.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old November 12, 2019, 01:19 PM   #48
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,506
Surprised that a new thread on this hasn’t popped up, but apparently the scotus has now allowed Remington to be sued by Sandy hook survivors.
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 12, 2019, 02:08 PM   #49
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,813
That the suit against Remington can proceed is not a comment on its merits, but a conclusion of the lower court that the part of the complaint that survives falls within the PLCAA exception.

Quote:
Respondents’ complaint alleges that petitioners violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which confers a right of action for personal-injury damages on any person harmed by “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 42-110b(a); see Pet. App. 62a. The complaint alleges that petitioners’ unlawful marketing of the XM15-E2S contributed to the deaths of the Sandy Hook victims by inspiring the shooter’s conduct and by causing him to select a particularly deadly weapon for his attack. Compl. ¶¶ 174-175, 219.
I still think the underlying claim is very difficult to support factually and it isn't at all clear to me that the marketing in question is unlawful under the state code. I have a link to the docket below. If I weren't busy, I'd comb through it to see whether the regulation of speech implicit in the respondent's claims is a problem mentioned in any of the amicus briefs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/19-168.html
zukiphile is offline  
Old November 13, 2019, 12:28 AM   #50
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,002
I think it important for those of us not well schooled in the legalese used to understand that the actual situation is not what is implied in various headlines or by certain talking heads in the media.

If I'm understating this correctly (and please, do correct me if, and where I'm wrong) the accuser is saying Rem ads broke CN law, AND that contributed to the Sandy Hook murders, so Remington should pay us....

Remington asked the High Court to toss the suit, because of the Protection of legal commerce of arms act (PLCAA) and the High Court has now allowed the lawsuit against Rem to go to court.

AND THAT'S ALL

at this point.

All the SCOTUS has, in effect, done is tell the plaintiffs that they dotted all the needed "i"s and crossed the needed "t"s and may go to their court and make their argument.

Their exact argument as to why, and for what Remington is liable, has not yet been made, so discussion of details about proving or disproving anything at this point are premature.

Right now, the only actual facts involved are the ones about the murders, directly, and those are that the murderer was not the legal owner of the gun he used (which was his mother, and one of the people he murdered). This is not in dispute. Since he murdered the legal owner, I think it is correct to consider the gun stolen.

I have a general question for our resident legal eagles, in regard to the claim of Remington being (some degree of) liable for the murders, would this be a "beyond reasonable doubt" or a "preponderance of the evidence" thing??
or some other standard I am unaware of??? perhaps a bit of both??

Does the claim Rem broke the advertising law make it a criminal matter? Would that part (breaking a law) be treated as a criminal matter and Rem's "responsibility" in the murder a civil matter with its different standards?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 -5. The time now is 07:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12594 seconds with 10 queries