RED ALERT!! Supreme court rules against 2nd amendment in devistatinng opinionn

[MindWars]

The US Supreme Court denied a request to review a case against Remington Arms, a ruling which overturns the very foundation of society by making companies guilty of behavior by end users:

Red Alert: Supreme Court Rules Against 2nd Amendment in Devastating Opinion


IF YOU HIT SOMEONE THE CAR MAKER IS GUILTY FUCK YOU GAWD DAM ASSHOLES!!

 

[MindWars]

More from the Washington Times:

The justices denied Remington’s request to review the case as it carries on in Connecticut courts.

The gun manufacturer had challenged the legal battle against it, saying federal law generally prohibits lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers when criminal use results from such a sale.

The same law firm suing Remington Arms is also suing Alex Jones, which means that the First Amendment is as threatened as the Second.

The lawyer representing Remington, Scott Keller, said the lawsuit against the manufacturer “is exactly the kind of case arising from a criminal’s misuse of a firearm that ‘may not be brought in any federal or state court.'”

 

[Dekster]

I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals

 

[Pogo]

The US Supreme Court denied a request to review a case against Remington Arms, a ruling which overturns the very foundation of society by making companies guilty of behavior by end users:

Red Alert: Supreme Court Rules Against 2nd Amendment in Devastating Opinion


IF YOU HIT SOMEONE THE CAR MAKER IS GUILTY FUCK YOU GAWD DAM ASSHOLES!!

If I have to read your boringly gullible hair-on-fire crapola posts again tomorrow, will USMB be "guilty"?

Poster please.

 

[Pogo]

More from the Washington Times:

The justices denied Remington’s request to review the case as it carries on in Connecticut courts.

The gun manufacturer had challenged the legal battle against it, saying federal law generally prohibits lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers when criminal use results from such a sale.

The same law firm suing Remington Arms is also suing Alex Jones, which means that the First Amendment is as threatened as the Second.

The lawyer representing Remington, Scott Keller, said the lawsuit against the manufacturer “is exactly the kind of case arising from a criminal’s misuse of a firearm that ‘may not be brought in any federal or state court.'”

Oh good. The Moonies.

Just gets more and more credible. Devistatinngly so.

 

[MindWars]

I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals

we can hope so you know how most are a bit to stupid to figure it out to where if you :

Hit somebody with a baseball and it kills them or severely harms them they too can now be sued and responsible-------

If you tripped knocked someone over now you can be sued for your accident and LOSE

if your car hits somebody and kills them the car maker now gets sued lmfao PPL R FUCKING IDIOTS!!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals

we can hope so you know how most are a bit to stupid to figure it out to where if you :

Hit somebody with a baseball and it kills them or severely harms them they too can now be sued and responsible-------

If you tripped knocked someone over now you can be sued for your accident and LOSE

if your car hits somebody and kills them the car maker now gets sued lmfao PPL R FUCKING IDIOTS!!

Not that I really care about this..but your logic is flawed...hitting someone with a ball is a misuse of the intended purpose. It was not foreseeable.

If you trip..you may be sued already..depends if your accident was foreseeable and/or the result of your carelessness.

If you hit someone..and kill them with your car...if some damage or defect is discovered--damn right. The maker gets sued.

There is precedent....the tobacco lawsuits.....the Oxycontin settlements.

Tort law is a weird thing--if the jury finds that there is a causal linkage between Remington's marketing..and the loss of their children--the Plaintiff might get the nod. If they do..be hard to overturn.

No matter..the 2nd is safe..as the ruling would affect Gun makers..not your right to bear arms.

 

[Dekster]

I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals

we can hope so you know how most are a bit to stupid to figure it out to where if you :

Hit somebody with a baseball and it kills them or severely harms them they too can now be sued and responsible-------

If you tripped knocked someone over now you can be sued for your accident and LOSE

if your car hits somebody and kills them the car maker now gets sued lmfao PPL R FUCKING IDIOTS!!

But can the baseball bat manufacturer, your shoe lace manufacturer and your car manufacturer be sued for your negligence or intentional acts?

Anyway I assume they are going for the negligence exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act but I haven't really followed the case that much.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Already a thread on this