Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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?
If some libby court allows this to happen, then the gun manufacturer is still liable even if a police officer uses their weapon in self-defense. Not only should Remington pull all sales out of the state, but so should every other gun manufacturer. That would close down all the gun stores and people would have to get their arms from internet sales or physically buying them in another state.
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.
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.
And that Management, and Political Leadership have created a situation where companies risk bankruptcy for producing a product that works as designed safely.
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?
If some libby court allows this to happen, then the gun manufacturer is still liable even if a police officer uses their weapon in self-defense. Not only should Remington pull all sales out of the state, but so should every other gun manufacturer. That would close down all the gun stores and people would have to get their arms from internet sales or physically buying them in another state.
The problem with that is it give the politicians what they want, making it as difficult as possible for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm.
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.
And that Management, and Political Leadership have created a situation where companies risk bankruptcy for producing a product that works as designed safely.
if this lawsuit actually goes anywhere. I doubt the SC's refusal to squash was not based on the merits, but on procedure.
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?
If some libby court allows this to happen, then the gun manufacturer is still liable even if a police officer uses their weapon in self-defense. Not only should Remington pull all sales out of the state, but so should every other gun manufacturer. That would close down all the gun stores and people would have to get their arms from internet sales or physically buying them in another state.
The problem with that is it give the politicians what they want, making it as difficult as possible for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm.
No. It makes it difficult for anyone to get a firearm. Ammunition would also be difficult. Cops couldn’t train or qualify because of a shortage of ammunition. Then the liability shifts to the cities and state. If a cop who is not qualified by Department or State Regulation fires his weapon then the Cities and States have to pay.
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?
If some libby court allows this to happen, then the gun manufacturer is still liable even if a police officer uses their weapon in self-defense. Not only should Remington pull all sales out of the state, but so should every other gun manufacturer. That would close down all the gun stores and people would have to get their arms from internet sales or physically buying them in another state.
The problem with that is it give the politicians what they want, making it as difficult as possible for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm.
No. It makes it difficult for anyone to get a firearm. Ammunition would also be difficult. Cops couldn’t train or qualify because of a shortage of ammunition. Then the liability shifts to the cities and state. If a cop who is not qualified by Department or State Regulation fires his weapon then the Cities and States have to pay.
Still think this is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
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.
And that Management, and Political Leadership have created a situation where companies risk bankruptcy for producing a product that works as designed safely.
if this lawsuit actually goes anywhere. I doubt the SC's refusal to squash was not based on the merits, but on procedure.
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?
If some libby court allows this to happen, then the gun manufacturer is still liable even if a police officer uses their weapon in self-defense. Not only should Remington pull all sales out of the state, but so should every other gun manufacturer. That would close down all the gun stores and people would have to get their arms from internet sales or physically buying them in another state.
The problem with that is it give the politicians what they want, making it as difficult as possible for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm.
No. It makes it difficult for anyone to get a firearm. Ammunition would also be difficult. Cops couldn’t train or qualify because of a shortage of ammunition. Then the liability shifts to the cities and state. If a cop who is not qualified by Department or State Regulation fires his weapon then the Cities and States have to pay.
Still think this is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
Honda stopped making the original three wheeled ATV because of lawsuits. Blitz gas cans are history because of lawsuits. Even if you win you never recoup all that it costs you. So limiting liability is the only prudent course of action. Shit down sales to Connecticut until they pass a law where gun and ammunition manufacturers are held to the same liability standards as any other manufacturer.
Things are supposed to be fair in law. Boycotting the State is the fastest and simplest way to make things fair. Remington should be liable if they turn out an unsafe weapon just as Toyota is liable if they turn out a defective car. We don’t hold Toyota liable for the driver. Why should Remington be held to any different standard. Or should Gun Makers join Blitz as bankrupt companies over this unreasonable standard?
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?
If some libby court allows this to happen, then the gun manufacturer is still liable even if a police officer uses their weapon in self-defense. Not only should Remington pull all sales out of the state, but so should every other gun manufacturer. That would close down all the gun stores and people would have to get their arms from internet sales or physically buying them in another state.
The problem with that is it give the politicians what they want, making it as difficult as possible for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm.
No. It makes it difficult for anyone to get a firearm. Ammunition would also be difficult. Cops couldn’t train or qualify because of a shortage of ammunition. Then the liability shifts to the cities and state. If a cop who is not qualified by Department or State Regulation fires his weapon then the Cities and States have to pay.
Still think this is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
Honda stopped making the original three wheeled ATV because of lawsuits. Blitz gas cans are history because of lawsuits. Even if you win you never recoup all that it costs you. So limiting liability is the only prudent course of action. Shit down sales to Connecticut until they pass a law where gun and ammunition manufacturers are held to the same liability standards as any other manufacturer.
Things are supposed to be fair in law. Boycotting the State is the fastest and simplest way to make things fair. Remington should be liable if they turn out an unsafe weapon just as Toyota is liable if they turn out a defective car. We don’t hold Toyota liable for the driver. Why should Remington be held to any different standard. Or should Gun Makers join Blitz as bankrupt companies over this unreasonable standard?
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.
And that Management, and Political Leadership have created a situation where companies risk bankruptcy for producing a product that works as designed safely.
if this lawsuit actually goes anywhere. I doubt the SC's refusal to squash was not based on the merits, but on procedure.
The claim was about Remington's advertisements. What advertisements? I never see any gun billboards. I never see any gun commercials on television. I don't read many magazines, but I don't recall seeing any gun ads in them at my doctors office. So what advertising are they talking about?
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.
And that Management, and Political Leadership have created a situation where companies risk bankruptcy for producing a product that works as designed safely.
if this lawsuit actually goes anywhere. I doubt the SC's refusal to squash was not based on the merits, but on procedure.
The claim was about Remington's advertisements. What advertisements? I never see any gun billboards. I never see any gun commercials on television. I don't read many magazines, but I don't recall seeing any gun ads in them at my doctors office. So what advertising are they talking about?
It's a flimsy argument. They are probably talking about adverts in hunting and gun magazines, which actually did exist in times of yore.
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.
And that Management, and Political Leadership have created a situation where companies risk bankruptcy for producing a product that works as designed safely.
if this lawsuit actually goes anywhere. I doubt the SC's refusal to squash was not based on the merits, but on procedure.
The claim was about Remington's advertisements. What advertisements? I never see any gun billboards. I never see any gun commercials on television. I don't read many magazines, but I don't recall seeing any gun ads in them at my doctors office. So what advertising are they talking about?
It's a flimsy argument. They are probably talking about adverts in hunting and gun magazines, which actually did exist in times of yore.
I think they still do advertise there and in gun stores, but that's not a general advertisement. It's for gun enthusiasts and not aimed and anybody else, no pun intended. There was a law passed in the early 2000's that stopped firearm lawsuits like this from happening with a few exceptions, and advertising is one of those exceptions.
What the Supreme Court said is they have the right to bring their case to court for them to rule if their advertising was irresponsible or damaging. Unless it's a commie lib court, I can't see how they could win the case.
If some libby court allows this to happen, then the gun manufacturer is still liable even if a police officer uses their weapon in self-defense. Not only should Remington pull all sales out of the state, but so should every other gun manufacturer. That would close down all the gun stores and people would have to get their arms from internet sales or physically buying them in another state.
The problem with that is it give the politicians what they want, making it as difficult as possible for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm.
No. It makes it difficult for anyone to get a firearm. Ammunition would also be difficult. Cops couldn’t train or qualify because of a shortage of ammunition. Then the liability shifts to the cities and state. If a cop who is not qualified by Department or State Regulation fires his weapon then the Cities and States have to pay.
Still think this is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
Honda stopped making the original three wheeled ATV because of lawsuits. Blitz gas cans are history because of lawsuits. Even if you win you never recoup all that it costs you. So limiting liability is the only prudent course of action. Shit down sales to Connecticut until they pass a law where gun and ammunition manufacturers are held to the same liability standards as any other manufacturer.
Things are supposed to be fair in law. Boycotting the State is the fastest and simplest way to make things fair. Remington should be liable if they turn out an unsafe weapon just as Toyota is liable if they turn out a defective car. We don’t hold Toyota liable for the driver. Why should Remington be held to any different standard. Or should Gun Makers join Blitz as bankrupt companies over this unreasonable standard?
I understand your point, but again you give the politicians in the State what they want, restriction of gun access for law abiding citizens.
The problem with that is it give the politicians what they want, making it as difficult as possible for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm.
No. It makes it difficult for anyone to get a firearm. Ammunition would also be difficult. Cops couldn’t train or qualify because of a shortage of ammunition. Then the liability shifts to the cities and state. If a cop who is not qualified by Department or State Regulation fires his weapon then the Cities and States have to pay.
Still think this is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
Honda stopped making the original three wheeled ATV because of lawsuits. Blitz gas cans are history because of lawsuits. Even if you win you never recoup all that it costs you. So limiting liability is the only prudent course of action. Shit down sales to Connecticut until they pass a law where gun and ammunition manufacturers are held to the same liability standards as any other manufacturer.
Things are supposed to be fair in law. Boycotting the State is the fastest and simplest way to make things fair. Remington should be liable if they turn out an unsafe weapon just as Toyota is liable if they turn out a defective car. We don’t hold Toyota liable for the driver. Why should Remington be held to any different standard. Or should Gun Makers join Blitz as bankrupt companies over this unreasonable standard?
I understand your point, but again you give the politicians in the State what they want, restriction of gun access for law abiding citizens.
But by boycotting the state they would also get what they do not want. A police force that is unable to train or be equipped. Want to see panic in politicians? Tell them that there is no one to protect them as the police don’t have guns or ammo. That is what I am talking about. Not selling any guns or ammo to anyone in the state.
