It's a novel idea, but it also follows that if an AR manufacturer (of which there are hundreds, if not thousands) doesn't advertise, or if it does advertise, clearly shows Bambi or a target in the ad, that's okay.
Posted on 11/12/2019 8:54:31 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
Buy 80 percent lower futures.
news item 3 weeks from now:
“industry experts are baffled by an unexpected increase in firearms sales, especially assault rifles . . .”
Could this be strategy to set a precedent that these lawsuits are totally stupid? I’m thinking that rejecting the case doesn’t explicitly answer the question. But hearing the case and declaring “This is BS” might prevent all future cases.
But I don’t understand legal matters.
Yes - They will litigate the Mfgs out of existence.
I wonder where Justice Roberts is in all this?
I think once a lawsuit is lost by a gunmaker, that can then proceed to the SCOTUS. The only reason one should be able to sue a manufacturer is for a manufacturing defect. If the gun used shot straight and reliably, there was no manufacturing defect.
I never see any ads, and I don't buy trade magazines ?
Wonder what the prosecution has on that ?
Stupid lawsuit.
WOW! Guess booze makers, car makers, power tool makers and on and on and on better watch out.
So now if you are a victim of a hit and run, or drunk driver, or any other automobile accident we can sue the manufacturer?
All the Rats need is the right jury.
Counter-sue the victims, families and the lawyers for being in the way of the weapons and emotional distress.
It was probably a footnote at the bottom of the ad that got them in trouble: “Please use this product as directed.”
;-)
Exactly, and it's a shame that the article didn't explain that. Having the Supreme Court step in before a trial/verdict would have been very unusual procedurally, and I suspect that's why review was denied.
Yep. One of the reasons why the "firearm manufacturers protection" law was passed to begin with was to prevent the "lawfare" being directed at those companies from doing broader harm to products liability law.
Of course, the Commies don't care if they burn the entire house down.
This isn’t criminal. How many on the jury? And how must they vote for award?
Knife makers next!
It's a novel idea, but it also follows that if an AR manufacturer (of which there are hundreds, if not thousands) doesn't advertise, or if it does advertise, clearly shows Bambi or a target in the ad, that's okay.
Does the Supreme court think Auto Makers should be liable for all violence involving vehicles on the road then?
Interesting opinion...
I would think they’d have to prove that Lanza saw the advertising. Otherwise, why would it matter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.