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: 2,903
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: 2,903
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: 3,575
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: 2,903
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: 2,239
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
__________________
Carpe diem mañana
natman is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 10:34 AM   #31
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
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.
__________________
Carpe diem mañana
natman is offline  
Old March 16, 2019, 01:53 PM   #32
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 158
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: 12,330
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
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,545
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: 7,075
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: 7,075


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: 2,903
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: 2,903
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: 2,903
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: 2,341
Wouldnt they have to prove that the shooter actually read/saw this marketing in order to be influenced by it?
1stmar is online now  
Old March 17, 2019, 07:36 AM   #41
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
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: 7,075
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
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,545
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  
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 09:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.08569 seconds with 9 queries