|
|
|
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:
Connecticut Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook shooting victims’ families to proceed in firearms industry lawsuit
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a 4-3 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a lower court decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the families of victims from the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting to sue firearms manufacturers.
The plaintiffs allege that gun manufacturer Remington marketed its Bushmaster AR-15-style weapon for illegal and offensive purposes that violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Finding that firearms advertising fell under the state statute would allow for a workaround of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which currently limits a citizen’s ability to sue gun manufacturers and sellers. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/16/2019)
|
| It is categorically and specifically prohibited by federal law. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
