Will this stand up?

Nah, it’ll escalate to the supreme court and get smacked down hard. As it should

>Will this stand up?
it shouldn't but I think it will
they will make sure to hold the trial in an area filled with sympathetic people
emotions > facts

regardless, this is a defacto penalty for Remington (which I don't particularly have any affection for)
They will have to spend untold millions to defend themselves from what is an obviously meritless claim

Sue the gun companies into oblivion as an end-run around their right to exist.
fucking glow in the dark deep state globalists

Oy vey! A woke goyim! Ban him!

Attached: 1535980483436.jpg (1113x1000, 169K)

>tfw a single man can AstroTurf an entire thrall into being

Hey Bloomberg
you know all those ponzi schemes, and financial crimes?
they all used your bloomberg terminal
strict liability motherfucker

According to the jew lawyers this advertisement encourages violent and criminal behavior so it isn't protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Attached: AR-121219961.jpg (2276x3120, 3.27M)

next I'll sue ford because one hit me when driven by a drunk.

exactly

>sympathetic people
You mean a jury of 12 women?

>invest 50 million to start grassroots campaign
>grassroots
>50 million
>grassroots

> Will this stand up
No. Even if you're fairly anti-2nd-amendment, you don't want the precedent this sets. They claim that because Bushnaster's advertising highlighted the link between their civilian products and the military, that means that the graphic designer of that ad is implicitly an accomplice for Adam Lanza's murder. Even further, since Adam Lanza did not purchase the rifle, the graphic designer is held liable even when someone does not buy their good. They are liable simply from the good existing.

Every law wonk I've read on this so far says they expect this to get overturned at the next appeal. But this was never about actually winning.

The parents and lawyers don't want a win. They want a public airing of internal documents at Remington following the shooting to embaress and/ publicly damage executives and stock prices.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903
Suit will ultimately be dismissed. Is past similar cases legal fees have been reimbursed to defendants. There have been successful suits against guns stores, but only when they have committed negligent acts.

This is the kind of bullshit lawsuit that permanently fucked the general aviation industry in the 80s and 90s. If this ever actually made it through just imagine how many thousands of lawsuits firearm companies would have to deal with every year, and how much insurance they'd need buy on every gun sold to protect themselves. It would effectively end retail gun sales for the general public. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act#History

>implying

This is correct, only the advertising charge was allowed.

This makes me fucking mad. I wanted to fly small planes when I was a child but they fucked the pricing so hard it became impossible, now I can only do paramotoring. Fuck these people.

>build amazing flying machines that cost as little as a family sedan and last for decades
>get sued for millions when some dumb fuck kills himself in it 20 years later
I work in GA and it's crazy to think how different things might have been if laws protecting manufacturers from that bullshit were put in place earlier. I would actually try to get my license if the everything weren't so fucking expensive.

If you actually read the article and the decision, this all hinges on whether congress "intend(ed) to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct"

Unfortunately, I agree that congress probably did not intend that. However, I don't believe the advertising in question was "truly unethical and irresponsible," or that the advertising caused damages. Considering the perpetrator of Sandy Hook did not buy a Bushmaster, and in fact stole it from a woman who bought it prior to the ad campaign, it is difficult to see how the plaintiff's argument makes sense.

Im going to sue if a relevant to the accident car commercial shows a guy driving fast, taking corners too tight, or braking quickly
>NO ONE NEEDS A RACE CAR

There's no way in hell they can prove that Remington's advertising was trying to turn children into "killing machines" by marketing a military rifle to them. What a frivolous lawsuit. It's... it's like someone with a lot of money is just trying to agitate people.

>truly unethical and irresponsible advertising practices

How the hell do the plan on establishing that objectively? This is literally “I feel like they’re wrong so they’re wrong”, but in a courtroom.

(((courts))) are how the jews destroyed borders. ruined our nation with litigation and hundreds of million dollar judgements.
also how they forced americans to pay billions a year to pay for illegal immigrants replacing them.

Attached: armed goyim 11.jpg (1608x2000, 940K)

They can't, that's why it's going to a court. The judge (or jury) will determine whether the advertising was "unethical" in nature.

If it were black and white objective it wouldn't be a suit and the verdict/charges levied at this point

>Adam (((Winkler)))
>Nathan Wuerten(((berg)))

I dont think you guys understand just how fucking insane and retarded everyone has become. No one thinks anymore.

>i can now sue tinder for no matches
Yessssssss

Would this really be interpreted to other manufacturers or just gun manufacturers? It seems like the aviation thing only applied to airplanes and didn’t stretch anywhere else.

I think a more accurate analogy would be suing the Apple store

Maybe, but this is a very specific ruling with narrow applicability.

This. Gamers rise up tbqh famalam

>They want a public airing of internal documents at Remington following the shooting to embaress and/ publicly damage executives and stock prices.
If it's possible to b8 the parents into admitting this after the case there could be some pretty hefty legal recourse.

Wasn't Lanza's mother the one that purchased the firearm?

A lawsuit based on a staged hoax? It shouldn't.

Yes, and the kid killed her and unlawfully took and used said weapon.
And somehow Remington is responsible, liberal logic.

Maybe we should sue the states that issued the driver's license to drunk drivers that killed people. After all they wouldn't have been on the road had that state not given them the privilege to drive.

a colorado judge awarded luckygunned and sg $200,000 in legal fees after the brady campaign convinced some aurora parents to sue them.

It's overblown by lefties as a win. The court denied negligence charges but it upheld allegations of bad advertising by showcasing the Bushmaster AR as combat ready.

E.g. whatever

I have no words for this man.

Attached: MICHAEL-BLOOMBERG-570.jpg (570x418, 76K)

>buy Corvette
>nigger steals it and joyrides into a farmer's market
>Chevy gets sued for marketing Corvette as a sports car to boomers that niggers want to steal
this is the logic at work here.

Attached: white-people-brought-crime-to-south-africa-they-brought-things-37401155.png (500x540, 130K)

Actually spent 40 years managing commercial insurance claims and I have full understanding of how insane and retarded people are. It will costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend it, and take several years, but eventually a judge will throw it out. Will not make it to a jury. I have spent over $250K defending a $5M baseless case regarding a shithead that was not worth 2 cents on his best day. Thrown out at district level, appealed and thrown out again at State supreme court level. Remington cannot afford to not defend it for the very reasons stated elsewhere, gun industry would close forever in US. Of course, that is the point.