Time for Gun makers to boycott states.

[WillPower]

ok very well

Liquor Control Commission in Arizona is pretty strict...when I bought my place, I uncapped a Heineken behind the bar and one of my bartenders grabbed it out of my hand....nobody drinks behind the bar....if a LCC undercover had seen that I'd have been fined. We had a lot of fights, maced the assholes, and threw them out...every time the cops showed up I had to write a report...believe me, my staff kept track of who was getting too drunk to continue being served. My own brother cut me off in a club he was working in Newport Beach...high dollar place....I was challenging other drunks to arm-wrestling contests up and down the bar....they finally lead me away but I was back a couple hours later and decided to behave myself.

 

[2aguy]

They might not go after the alcohol producers, but they damn sure will go after the bar owners. I know, I was a manager of a biker bar called Boondocks here in Amarillo for 4 years, and we were constantly reminded that we could be held liable if we overserved someone. And yeah, I've seen bar owners and workers be sued for stuff like that.

Perhaps it's because the bar tender knew they were causing a potential problem. When you manufacture firearms, you have no idea if somebody will use them to illegally kill other people.

Apple computers manufacture great computers with the hopes they will be used for good things and to benefit people. But if somebody uses an iMac to lure children into allies, or lure somebody off of Craigslist for a robbery, you don't sue Macintosh.

Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?

Sure, why not?

I don't know about down south, but up north, we suffer dozens of drownings every summer season. It happens in the lake, in pools, just a mess. So should we hold boar companies and pool manufacturers responsible for their deaths? After all, we know drownings happen every single summer.

Hell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.

If successful, look for every ambulance chaser in the field to be holding manufacturers of all kinds of products liable.

They will then go even harder at gun stores....using the advertising angle as a cash grab, gun control dream.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps it's because the bar tender knew they were causing a potential problem. When you manufacture firearms, you have no idea if somebody will use them to illegally kill other people.

Apple computers manufacture great computers with the hopes they will be used for good things and to benefit people. But if somebody uses an iMac to lure children into allies, or lure somebody off of Craigslist for a robbery, you don't sue Macintosh.

Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?

Sure, why not?

I don't know about down south, but up north, we suffer dozens of drownings every summer season. It happens in the lake, in pools, just a mess. So should we hold boar companies and pool manufacturers responsible for their deaths? After all, we know drownings happen every single summer.

Hell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.

If successful, look for every ambulance chaser in the field to be holding manufacturers of all kinds of products liable.

I can see it but why can't these approved "smart people"? lol

It's like if you buy a toaster. Like.....who doesn't know how to work a Fn toaster? But if you do look at the instruction manual, it's loaded with all kinds of safety precautions like don't take your toaster in the shower with you and plug it in. And now, it's in three different languages. Why is that?

Because some asshole, somewhere, decided to do stupid things like that. Yeah, if you try to dry off your address book in the toaster, you may start a fire.

So now all these companies have to provide pages of idiotic warnings simply to protect themselves from these crooked lawyers.

 

[WillPower]

It's like if you buy a toaster. Like.....who doesn't know how to work a Fn toaster? .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps it's because the bar tender knew they were causing a potential problem. When you manufacture firearms, you have no idea if somebody will use them to illegally kill other people.

Apple computers manufacture great computers with the hopes they will be used for good things and to benefit people. But if somebody uses an iMac to lure children into allies, or lure somebody off of Craigslist for a robbery, you don't sue Macintosh.

Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?

Sure, why not?

I don't know about down south, but up north, we suffer dozens of drownings every summer season. It happens in the lake, in pools, just a mess. So should we hold boar companies and pool manufacturers responsible for their deaths? After all, we know drownings happen every single summer.

Hell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.

If successful, look for every ambulance chaser in the field to be holding manufacturers of all kinds of products liable.

They will then go even harder at gun stores....using the advertising angle as a cash grab, gun control dream.

There is a solution to all this. Do what they do in England. They have a loser pays all law.

Sue anybody you like. But if you lose the suit, you are responsible for all the costs associated with the person you filed suit against. Legal representation, time off of work, court costs, all of it.

If our representatives were not mostly lawyers themselves, we would have such a common sense law, and lawsuits like this Remington case would never materialize.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting point how about hackers? could IBM be sued if it was found that hackers were using their computers they manufacture for illegal purposes that caused great harm?

Sure, why not?

I don't know about down south, but up north, we suffer dozens of drownings every summer season. It happens in the lake, in pools, just a mess. So should we hold boar companies and pool manufacturers responsible for their deaths? After all, we know drownings happen every single summer.

Hell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.

If successful, look for every ambulance chaser in the field to be holding manufacturers of all kinds of products liable.

I can see it but why can't these approved "smart people"? lol

It's like if you buy a toaster. Like.....who doesn't know how to work a Fn toaster? But if you do look at the instruction manual, it's loaded with all kinds of safety precautions like don't take your toaster in the shower with you and plug it in. And now, it's in three different languages. Why is that?

Because some asshole, somewhere, decided to do stupid things like that. Yeah, if you try to dry off your address book in the toaster, you may start a fire.

So now all these companies have to provide pages of idiotic warnings simply to protect themselves from these crooked lawyers.

Ruger supplies all their firearms they make with a safety manual lol
https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/RugerAmericanPistol-Standard.pdf

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure, why not?

I don't know about down south, but up north, we suffer dozens of drownings every summer season. It happens in the lake, in pools, just a mess. So should we hold boar companies and pool manufacturers responsible for their deaths? After all, we know drownings happen every single summer.

Hell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.

If successful, look for every ambulance chaser in the field to be holding manufacturers of all kinds of products liable.

I can see it but why can't these approved "smart people"? lol

It's like if you buy a toaster. Like.....who doesn't know how to work a Fn toaster? But if you do look at the instruction manual, it's loaded with all kinds of safety precautions like don't take your toaster in the shower with you and plug it in. And now, it's in three different languages. Why is that?

Because some asshole, somewhere, decided to do stupid things like that. Yeah, if you try to dry off your address book in the toaster, you may start a fire.

So now all these companies have to provide pages of idiotic warnings simply to protect themselves from these crooked lawyers.

Ruger supplies all their firearms they make with a safety manual lol
https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/RugerAmericanPistol-Standard.pdf

I don't know how old you are or if you were (are) a smoker, but do you remember the original bic disposable lighters? They used to have a flame adjustment on them, and you could have a flame two inches long if you were trying to light a campfire or when the winds were strong. They haven' been adjustable for many years, and each lighter has a warning sticker on it thanks to a lawsuit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hell why not if we are going to blame others for the actions of one person everybody should take a hit when wrong is done.

If successful, look for every ambulance chaser in the field to be holding manufacturers of all kinds of products liable.

I can see it but why can't these approved "smart people"? lol

It's like if you buy a toaster. Like.....who doesn't know how to work a Fn toaster? But if you do look at the instruction manual, it's loaded with all kinds of safety precautions like don't take your toaster in the shower with you and plug it in. And now, it's in three different languages. Why is that?

Because some asshole, somewhere, decided to do stupid things like that. Yeah, if you try to dry off your address book in the toaster, you may start a fire.

So now all these companies have to provide pages of idiotic warnings simply to protect themselves from these crooked lawyers.

Ruger supplies all their firearms they make with a safety manual lol
https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/RugerAmericanPistol-Standard.pdf

I don't know how old you are or if you were (are) a smoker, but do you remember the original bic disposable lighters? They used to have a flame adjustment on them, and you could have a flame two inches long if you were trying to light a campfire or when the winds were strong. They haven' been adjustable for many years, and each lighter has a warning sticker on it thanks to a lawsuit.

Yep I've used them

 

[SavannahMann]

After the already discussed to death decision of the Supreme Court in Remington v. Soto, there is one question left to discuss. What do we do now. That is the topic of this thread. It is not about the Remington Decision, or the future litigation. It is about what the Gun Makers should do now.

The answer is obvious. Boycott any and all sales to Connecticut. No sales, no way, to anyone. No guns, no ammunition, nothing. Not to the Cops, not to the citizens. Just pull out of the State entirely. The question now is how long before the same Politicians and Pundits who are demanding just this, would be up there like Foghorn Leghorn demanding these same companies ship guns and ammunition in to the Police?

If the are going to hold Remington responsible for the actions of the individual in one case, why not others? Why not sue Glock when a cop shoots a guy? Why not sue Smith and Wesson when the State Patrolman kills a motorist? If the maker of the weapon is responsible, we can’t risk it. We have to pull out of the State. Same thing with Ammunition Sales. In the 1980’s when Hollow-points were starting to be adapted by Police, the Lawyers claimed this ammunition was so vile, so awful it was prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It took years before the truth started to get out. How long before someone sues Hornady because the bullet expanded and killed the victim of a police shooting?

So the answer is this. Boycott Connecticut. All Gun Makers should cease all sales in the state. All Ammunition Manufacturers should also cease all sales. One of the worst things you can do to someone, is give them what they say they want. Then stand back and enjoy the chaos.

So let me get this straight. The way to respond to an attack against their sales potential, is to sell less? What next? Restore fiscal conservatism by taking the debt up to $23 trillion?

It is not an attack on sales potential. It is a standard of liability that no other manufacturer has. Dodge makes a number of muscle cars. Cars with enormously powerful engines. Advertised as having very powerful engines and as being very fast.

Now when an idiot buys the car Dodge is not held liable if someone else steals the car and plows into a school bus. But Remington is responsible because someone bought the rifle, and someone else stole it.

This standard of responsibility, of liability is unsustainable. Potential sales do not offset the huge losses from every use of the product. The only smart thing is to just stop selling in that state. Nobody can buy one of those firearms. Every sale is a potential hundreds of million dollars loss, just in legal fees. Even if successfully defended, it will be a huge loss.

A million dollars in profit from potential sales is not worth the risk of even one such lawsuit. Especially considering how that lawsuit will be the precedent for hundreds more.

So pull out of the State. When the cops want new pistols Glock, Beretta, and the rest should tell them to pound sand. When there are no guns or ammo, the people in that state should be thrilled. Stay out until it is the law that Gun and Ammunition manufacturers are held to the same liability standards as any other product. Not special, or lower standards. Exactly the same. Defective products should result in liability. But not the criminal actions of the end user, or worse someone who stole it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're right, alcohol producers DO sell a product specifically designed to get a person intoxicated. And, the primary purpose of a bar is to sell those products that get people intoxicated.

And, here in Texas, if a bartender serves alcohol to a person who is obviously drunk, they can ALSO be held liable. Same thing if you host a party with alcohol and someone leaves drunk and has a wreck.

Texas Liquor Laws & Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents

Texas has two laws that make other individuals and businesses liable for drunk driving crashes. One is known as a "dram shop law." This makes restaurants and bars liable for overserving alcohol to customers. The other is called the "social host law." This makes party hosts-as well as restaurants and bars-liable if they knowingly serve alcohol to underage drinkers.


Injured people and the families of those who died in crashes caused by intoxicated drivers can file civil lawsuits against the bars, restaurants and individuals who violated these laws. In addition, businesses and individuals may face criminal charges and penalties if convicted.

So, even without alcohol nobody is blaming Budweiser or Jack Daniels.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It's like if you buy a toaster. Like.....who doesn't know how to work a Fn toaster? .

better yet...

 

[martybegan]

The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.

At best they will find a sucker jury, win at trial, and lose on appeal.

Maybe. But boycotting the State is a better choice. Then they will close the legal loophole and allow Gun Makers the same legal protections that Car and Airplane manufacturers have.

The thing is it isn't illegal to buy something in one State and bring it to another, and governments can avoid the whole straw purchase thing, because they are government.

 

[SavannahMann]

The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.

At best they will find a sucker jury, win at trial, and lose on appeal.

Maybe. But boycotting the State is a better choice. Then they will close the legal loophole and allow Gun Makers the same legal protections that Car and Airplane manufacturers have.

The thing is it isn't illegal to buy something in one State and bring it to another, and governments can avoid the whole straw purchase thing, because they are government.

Let’s say the Connecticut State Police want to replace their pistols. They ask for bids. Nobody bids on the sale. Or perhaps some small custom pistol shop selling those $3000 1911 competition pistols. Are you telling me that Connecticut is going to go to New York or Massachusetts to buy them over the counter? They can’t by Federal Law. They have to be transferred in State via a FFL dealer.

The police can buy, but only if someone is selling. You can’t buy, nobody can buy something that isn’t for sale.

Even if they do, they will cost a lot more money, and be Civilian legal, ten round Magazines. Which means finding someone who will ship high capacity magazines. And if they do, and violate the agreement Glock as one example has, they could find it harder to get more products to sell.

it would cost at least half again as much as the bidding process. Same thing with Ammunition. If nobody bids, then they have to find someone who will sell and ship the ammunition. Right now the companies are competing, offering deals on the sales. If those companies say they don’t want the business. How long before the same politicians are ranting all red faced about how awful the companies are for not selling the guns and Ammunition?

 

[martybegan]

The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.

At best they will find a sucker jury, win at trial, and lose on appeal.

Maybe. But boycotting the State is a better choice. Then they will close the legal loophole and allow Gun Makers the same legal protections that Car and Airplane manufacturers have.

The thing is it isn't illegal to buy something in one State and bring it to another, and governments can avoid the whole straw purchase thing, because they are government.

Let’s say the Connecticut State Police want to replace their pistols. They ask for bids. Nobody bids on the sale. Or perhaps some small custom pistol shop selling those $3000 1911 competition pistols. Are you telling me that Connecticut is going to go to New York or Massachusetts to buy them over the counter? They can’t by Federal Law. They have to be transferred in State via a FFL dealer.

The police can buy, but only if someone is selling. You can’t buy, nobody can buy something that isn’t for sale.

Even if they do, they will cost a lot more money, and be Civilian legal, ten round Magazines. Which means finding someone who will ship high capacity magazines. And if they do, and violate the agreement Glock as one example has, they could find it harder to get more products to sell.

it would cost at least half again as much as the bidding process. Same thing with Ammunition. If nobody bids, then they have to find someone who will sell and ship the ammunition. Right now the companies are competing, offering deals on the sales. If those companies say they don’t want the business. How long before the same politicians are ranting all red faced about how awful the companies are for not selling the guns and Ammunition?

They could by excess guns from NY State or Mass, and I'm sure the agencies can get federal approval for such a transfer.

Any boycott like this would be counterproductive. Most police officers at the ground level support RKBA, it's the management and the political appointees in these States that hate civilians being armed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.

The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.

Nope. He made a weapon for people to hunt with and attend gun shows with. He's not responsible for murderous assholes.

What an idiot you are.

To hunt? To defend yourself against a herd of charging moose?

If I want 50, I'll buy 50. That's my right.

 

[Crixus]

The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.

The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.

you can say the same thing about a car.

The weapon was legal to produce, legal to sell.

Check out the cologne school massacre. Way more better stuff then a car and you can get it all at a goodwill store.

 

[Crixus]

After the already discussed to death decision of the Supreme Court in Remington v. Soto, there is one question left to discuss. What do we do now. That is the topic of this thread. It is not about the Remington Decision, or the future litigation. It is about what the Gun Makers should do now.

The answer is obvious. Boycott any and all sales to Connecticut. No sales, no way, to anyone. No guns, no ammunition, nothing. Not to the Cops, not to the citizens. Just pull out of the State entirely. The question now is how long before the same Politicians and Pundits who are demanding just this, would be up there like Foghorn Leghorn demanding these same companies ship guns and ammunition in to the Police?

If the are going to hold Remington responsible for the actions of the individual in one case, why not others? Why not sue Glock when a cop shoots a guy? Why not sue Smith and Wesson when the State Patrolman kills a motorist? If the maker of the weapon is responsible, we can’t risk it. We have to pull out of the State. Same thing with Ammunition Sales. In the 1980’s when Hollow-points were starting to be adapted by Police, the Lawyers claimed this ammunition was so vile, so awful it was prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It took years before the truth started to get out. How long before someone sues Hornady because the bullet expanded and killed the victim of a police shooting?

So the answer is this. Boycott Connecticut. All Gun Makers should cease all sales in the state. All Ammunition Manufacturers should also cease all sales. One of the worst things you can do to someone, is give them what they say they want. Then stand back and enjoy the chaos.

The case is a loser. All the SCOTUS did was rip the scab off all those poor parents wounds. The media wo love reliving all those little kids getting shot. Democrat polititions will lap it up like creepers lap up porn. And for what? What will the families get out of it? Nothing but months and years of reliving the worst day in their lives. The one gun company that owns all of them will win.

 

[TNHarley]

The court cases will go nowhere. No way can a gun company be held liable for what people who buy their guns do.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon and unless you can control, ban or regulate murderous assholes you will always have victims.

The manufacturer made a weapon for mass killing and that’s what it was used for. Completely irresponsible to sell a weapon for mass killing to the public.

That's the way I feel about Ferrari and Lamborghini cars. They should be sued as well.
Let's sue every company that you and I deem irresponsible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

After the already discussed to death decision of the Supreme Court in Remington v. Soto, there is one question left to discuss. What do we do now. That is the topic of this thread. It is not about the Remington Decision, or the future litigation. It is about what the Gun Makers should do now.

The answer is obvious. Boycott any and all sales to Connecticut. No sales, no way, to anyone. No guns, no ammunition, nothing. Not to the Cops, not to the citizens. Just pull out of the State entirely. The question now is how long before the same Politicians and Pundits who are demanding just this, would be up there like Foghorn Leghorn demanding these same companies ship guns and ammunition in to the Police?

If the are going to hold Remington responsible for the actions of the individual in one case, why not others? Why not sue Glock when a cop shoots a guy? Why not sue Smith and Wesson when the State Patrolman kills a motorist? If the maker of the weapon is responsible, we can’t risk it. We have to pull out of the State. Same thing with Ammunition Sales. In the 1980’s when Hollow-points were starting to be adapted by Police, the Lawyers claimed this ammunition was so vile, so awful it was prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It took years before the truth started to get out. How long before someone sues Hornady because the bullet expanded and killed the victim of a police shooting?

So the answer is this. Boycott Connecticut. All Gun Makers should cease all sales in the state. All Ammunition Manufacturers should also cease all sales. One of the worst things you can do to someone, is give them what they say they want. Then stand back and enjoy the chaos.

The case is a loser. All the SCOTUS did was rip the scab off all those poor parents wounds. The media wo love reliving all those little kids getting shot. Democrat polititions will lap it up like creepers lap up porn. And for what? What will the families get out of it? Nothing but months and years of reliving the worst day in their lives. The one gun company that owns all of them will win.

Actually, the only ones that will win are the lawyers, especially if it gets heavy media coverage.

 

[Crixus]

After the already discussed to death decision of the Supreme Court in Remington v. Soto, there is one question left to discuss. What do we do now. That is the topic of this thread. It is not about the Remington Decision, or the future litigation. It is about what the Gun Makers should do now.

The answer is obvious. Boycott any and all sales to Connecticut. No sales, no way, to anyone. No guns, no ammunition, nothing. Not to the Cops, not to the citizens. Just pull out of the State entirely. The question now is how long before the same Politicians and Pundits who are demanding just this, would be up there like Foghorn Leghorn demanding these same companies ship guns and ammunition in to the Police?

If the are going to hold Remington responsible for the actions of the individual in one case, why not others? Why not sue Glock when a cop shoots a guy? Why not sue Smith and Wesson when the State Patrolman kills a motorist? If the maker of the weapon is responsible, we can’t risk it. We have to pull out of the State. Same thing with Ammunition Sales. In the 1980’s when Hollow-points were starting to be adapted by Police, the Lawyers claimed this ammunition was so vile, so awful it was prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It took years before the truth started to get out. How long before someone sues Hornady because the bullet expanded and killed the victim of a police shooting?

So the answer is this. Boycott Connecticut. All Gun Makers should cease all sales in the state. All Ammunition Manufacturers should also cease all sales. One of the worst things you can do to someone, is give them what they say they want. Then stand back and enjoy the chaos.

The case is a loser. All the SCOTUS did was rip the scab off all those poor parents wounds. The media wo love reliving all those little kids getting shot. Democrat polititions will lap it up like creepers lap up porn. And for what? What will the families get out of it? Nothing but months and years of reliving the worst day in their lives. The one gun company that owns all of them will win.

Actually, the only ones that will win are the lawyers, especially if it gets heavy media coverage.

This is true. They also happen to be one of the biggest doners to the DNC. Making millions off dead kids. Seems to be a thing with them.