Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Lets Suit Against Gunmaker Proceed (CA)
The Washington Post ^ | May 30, 2004 | NA

Posted on 05/30/2004 1:05:04 AM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: neverdem

This would be like McDonalds getting sued for billing its meals as delicious. Why, people might order more if they believed that, and get fat and have a heart attack and die.


21 posted on 05/30/2004 10:54:43 PM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone; Congressman Billybob
Suppose this goes to a trial and the jury calls the plaintiff's arguments horse manure. Does that set any precedent?

It already went to trial and lost in almost all local, federal district courts, except in this case. Here it passed appellate review. The next stop is the U.S. Supreme court. It appears they will have to take the case as all other Circuit Courts have ruled the other way.

If I may bother you again, what do you say John?

22 posted on 05/30/2004 10:59:33 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The courts have abandoned reason, common sense, and the law itself.

I pray that sanity might claim our courts in my lifetime.


23 posted on 05/30/2004 11:54:27 PM PDT by Imal (Enough of this! Let's hear more about Abu Ghraib.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The only way that the US Supreme Court could duck this case -- since lower courts have disagreed -- would be to decide that "there is no federal question presented." Nothing in the Constitution requires that state courts agree with one another on a given issue, whereas, when federal courts disagree, it becomes the obligation of the Supreme Court to decide which is correct. Federal law cannot be different, depending on where you live.

The Supreme Court should not duck this case. However, in the area of the 2nd Amendment, the Court has become a master of ducking the issue. I give it 50-50 that the Court will duck this case also. And if it takes this case, I shudder to anticipate what the Court will then do with the case.

That may not be what you wanted to hear. But that's my opinion from reading all of the Court's prior cases, most of which tap dance around the 2nd Amendment.

Congressman Billybob

Latest Article, "Why Bush's War College Speech Fell Flat"

24 posted on 05/31/2004 1:26:51 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
They'll be boycotted for supporting the NRA.

1. They only think they would be boycotted for supporting the NRA. I suspect the real answer is that their sales would increase.

Since they think this way we have to drag them into it against their will. The judge has shown us the way in the written opinion. Says it is perfectly logical for them to be sued with the same kind of reasoning. A little legal seed money to get some really big corporations on the wrong side of a few lawsuits and they would suddenly find they had common cause with the NRA and with Glock.

25 posted on 05/31/2004 8:47:16 AM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
Ahem... isn't liberals providing welfare money to criminals that allow them to have guns and what not?

Not directly. They steal the guns, or other stuff to get money to buy the guns stolen by others. What welfare does is give them the "freedom" not take care of their responsibilities, like providing for, and raising their kids. Those kids are mostly the ones doing the stealing and the killing.

26 posted on 05/31/2004 10:34:38 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
Suppose this goes to a trial and the jury calls the plaintiff's arguments horse manure. Does that set any precedent?

Not wit. These days, for quite some decades in fact, the jury is only to try the facts, they are not to judge the law as brought down from on high by the judges.

27 posted on 05/31/2004 10:38:09 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

...and 'spoon manufacturers' are at fault for Rosie O'Donnell being fat...?


28 posted on 05/31/2004 10:59:58 AM PDT by Seadog Bytes ("Smart Growth...ISN'T !!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Thank you for your reply and the link.


29 posted on 05/31/2004 12:02:39 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson