|
|
|
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 |
| "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1 "Arrest") |
|
|
