That very well may be, but guns do not fit that description.
Well, I must admit I’m not sure what gun fetishists do with them in the bedroom.
And people get mad at us for saying that judges are judicial activists. There is a law that says you cannot sue gunmakers yet a judge rules that you can. Don’t the people rule in a democracy?
What ads ask for misuse of the product? And how can the sale of something that is a constitutional right be actionable? I’m serious, show me the ad that tells me to shoot up a school with the product. There isn’t one.
But it isn’t and if it is, they are crappy at doing so as only a minuscule % ever do so.
Only a miniscule % of nuclear weapons have ever been detonated. Does that imply that they are designed for some purpose other than blowing stuff up, or that they are “crappy at doing so”?
The mental contortions are quite astonishing if you won’t even concede that the designed purpose of guns is to kill efficiently.
No, it’s being used for its intended purpose of driving bits of metal at high speed into things. If it’s used to punt baseballs at batting practice, then it’s being misused. Does Remington have a “not intended for use on humans” disclaimer? I doubt it. Illegal use is not misuse.
I hope you don’t suddenly decide to call the cops on me like other users when I prove them wrong.
Yes, yes, guns are used today also to punch paper and clay and whatnot. But target shooting would have never come into existence had firearms designed for the sole purpose of killing quickly and easily not been invented and widely adopted, for killing quickly and easily.
As I understand it from the news story, the federal law doesn’t bar actions under state consumer protection laws. That’s what they sued under: state consumer protection law.
Right. The 2005 law has some exemptions, and Remington’s advertising falls within one of those.
You have to read publications like Guns & Ammo or some of the hunting ones. You’ll see ads focused on home and self defense, and also a lot of ads for male pheromones to make the male readers irresistible to women.
Project Plowshare was not using nuclear weapons as paperweights. The great majority of it was using them for exactly what I said was their designed purpose:
Even the parts that (arguably) were not, were exploiting indirect effects deriving from massive explosions. If you want to call that a gotcha that some purposes of a failed project that ended in 1977 were not the direct purpose of blowing stuff up, okay. I have already conceded that a gun could be used as a sex toy.
The law, while broad, is not absolute. And, as you know, if a judge gets it wrong, the aggrieved party can appeal. This case was resolved by an agreement of the parties, not by a judge. I assume you don’t have any objection to private parties entering into a legal contract?
Note that this case proceeded after the state Supreme Court and the SCOTUS allowed it to proceed, so I doubt it would have been reversed on appeal.
So I hope this is the first of many lawsuits against the gun industry on similar grounds.
There’s an interesting one in Las Vegas related to the MGM shooting based on the machine gun exception to the law. (“easily modified to automatic” language) The Nevada Supreme Court threw it out, but a motion for reconsideration is pending.
Many states have laws similar to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which is the law that allowed this case to proceed.
The documents that Remington is releasing may help others in similar suits.
The trick will be to find insurance that isn’t exhausted. Remmington is bankrupt I think
They’re not really bankrupt until they’re out of business entirely.
All cases against them would be stayed in they filed in bankruptcy court. You can ask the bankruptcy court for permission to proceed solely against insurance and not company assets (and presumably that’s what happened here)