|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CT: Connecticut News Paper: Sue One Gun Company, Sue Them All
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Written by managing editor Chris Powell, the JI column shows this is so because “the lawsuit’s theory”—that the AR-15 “has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes”—”could be applied against any gun [manufacturer].”
Powell points out that federal law actually prohibits suing gun manufacturers for the misuse of their products. But he believes this suit may test that law or may be intended to somehow bluff Bushmaster into issuing settlements. If the the law fails or settlements result—or both—the suit against Bushmaster turns into a precedent for suits against other AR-15 manufacturers and, eventually, any gun company whose products have been misused. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(1/1/2015)
|
“The lawsuit’s theory”—that the AR-15 “has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes" is foreclosed not only by federal statute, but by judicial precedent:
“With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” - UNITED STATES v. MILLER
Translation: The attributes the plaintiffs claim should make these arms off-limits to civilians are precisely those the SCOTUS has ruled as requisite to be within the ambit of the Second Amendment.
If counsel for the respondents doesn't cite this precedent and move for summary dismissal, he isn't earning his money. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
