PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on February 23, 2016, 08:26:43 AM
-
Oh, brother.
This lawsuit is based entirely on emotion, lies about the AR-15, and in violation of a federal statute against such a lawsuit.
The lawyers who took this case should be disbarred.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/newtown-families-sue-gun-maker-sandy-hook-massacre-n268536
-
As of this writing, the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has never been defeated.
-
Oh, brother.
This lawsuit is based entirely on emotion, lies about the AR-15, and in violation of a federal statute against such a lawsuit.
The lawyers who took this case should be disbarred.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/newtown-families-sue-gun-maker-sandy-hook-massacre-n268536
The judge who doesn't immediately toss this should be removed from the bench and disbarred.
-
As of this writing, the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has never been defeated.
Do you have any idea how many times it's been challenged? That would be interesting to see.
-
I found this part amusing:
Although the suit seeks damages, Soto said money is not the motivation. Instead, she wants gun firms to stop funneling AR-15s to civilians.
Funneling? It's as if the gun shops are doing it illegally. Also, please point out, anywhere, it says that AR-15's cannot be sold. It's not a military weapon, it doesn't have a 3 round burst or full auto mode on it.
She would be better off joining the anti-gun lobby to try and re-instate the assault weapons ban.
-
I don't believe Reminington even makes the AR-15.
Isn't the AR-15 a Colt/Armalite product?
-
She would be better off joining the anti-gun lobby to try and re-instate the assault weapons ban.
WTF good would happen by re-instating the AWB?
Can someone point to any rational reason why the AWB would be a benefit? Oh, when you do that, try to take into account the lawful uses of firearms (I know, that pesky Constitution is just a hinderance...)
-
WTF good would happen by re-instating the AWB?
Can someone point to any rational reason why the AWB would be a benefit? Oh, when you do that, try to take into account the lawful uses of firearms (I know, that pesky Constitution is just a hinderance...)
My point was that instead of bringing a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer (which isn't likely to go anywhere), she'd be better off pursuing her goals by joining the anti-gun lobby.
-
My point was that instead of bringing a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer (which isn't likely to go anywhere), she'd be better off pursuing her goals by joining the anti-gun lobby.
It did a number on the GA industry
-
Loser pays would put a stop to this freaking stupidity.
-
I don't believe Reminington even makes the AR-15.
Isn't the AR-15 a Colt/Armalite product?
The AR has morphed into a platform. There are dozens of manufacturers that make completed AR rifles, and thousands that make parts for DIYers. For the most part, the parts are interchangeable between manufacturers.
-
I don't believe Reminington even makes the AR-15.
Isn't the AR-15 a Colt/Armalite product?
I think I read in an article that Remington is the parent company of Bushmaster. I wasn't aware of that.
-
The AR has morphed into a platform. There are dozens of manufacturers that make completed AR rifles, and thousands that make parts for DIYers. For the most part, the parts are interchangeable between manufacturers.
The AR-15 is a specific make/model.
Other companies make .223rem or 5.56 NATO semiautomatic rifles, but not the AR-15.
-
Loser pays would put a stop to this freaking stupidity.
That would be a solution to reducing the court's workload only. In every case, there's a winner and loser. That would be an absolutist solution that says to bring a suit it would have to be a slam dunk. Law rarely is that simple.
-
That would be a solution to reducing the court's workload only. In every case, there's a winner and loser. That would be an absolutist solution that says to bring a suit it would have to be a slam dunk. Law rarely is that simple.
But it often is, as in this case.
So despite a law preventing this suit, Remington will likely spend millions of dollars on legal defense. That's wrong, and that's why airplanes cost more than many homes.
-
The AR-15 is a specific make/model.
Other companies make .223rem or 5.56 NATO semiautomatic rifles, but not the AR-15.
Brother, not this again.
Yes, Colt made the original AR15. Now when you read an article that refers to an AR15 they're referring to a rifle of a particular platform, not a rifle from a specific manufacturer. You could completely disassemble an AR15 made my CMMG, Bushmaster, S&W, and Colt, (or from over dozens of other manufacturers) putting the like pieces in piles together. You could reassemble 4 rifles by picking pieces from each pile at random. It wouldn't matter if the buffer tube was from the CMMG or Bushmaster. It wouldn't matter if the firing pin was from the S&W or Colt.
The only caveat here is that the AR is becoming more robust. With renewed interest in guns it seems like more options are becoming available every day. You can make your own AR for almost any caliber ammo and with a variety of grips, stocks, barrel lengths, etc.
-
Do you have any idea how many times it's been challenged? That would be interesting to see.
At least 4 or 5 that I am aware of but can't rattle off the top of my head.
-
Brother, not this again.
Yes, Colt made the original AR15. Now when you read an article that refers to an AR15 they're referring to a rifle of a particular platform, not a rifle from a specific manufacturer. You could completely disassemble an AR15 made my CMMG, Bushmaster, S&W, and Colt, (or from over dozens of other manufacturers) putting the like pieces in piles together. You could reassemble 4 rifles by picking pieces from each pile at random. It wouldn't matter if the buffer tube was from the CMMG or Bushmaster. It wouldn't matter if the firing pin was from the S&W or Colt.
The only caveat here is that the AR is becoming more robust. With renewed interest in guns it seems like more options are becoming available every day. You can make your own AR for almost any caliber ammo and with a variety of grips, stocks, barrel lengths, etc.
just to keep the pedantic tradition...
Colt considers AR-15 to be a trademark (or some such thing, IANAL). So Bushmaster (for example) doesn't make an "AR-15".
and btw, don't try to use the Bushmaster DCM safety with certain triggers (or the other way around - they won't work)
parts are not quite universally interchangeable.
-
just to keep the pedantic tradition...
Colt considers AR-15 to be a trademark (or some such thing, IANAL). So Bushmaster (for example) doesn't make an "AR-15".
and btw, don't try to use the Bushmaster DCM safety with certain triggers (or the other way around - they won't work)
parts are not quite universally interchangeable.
I think Armalite (thus the AR) had the original patent, and then licensed the design to Colt.
-
I think Armalite (thus the AR) had the original patent, and then licensed the design to Colt.
it's my understanding that the patent was sold to Colt.
-
Yes, Colt made the original AR15. Now when you read an article that refers to an AR15 they're referring to a rifle of a particular platform, not a rifle from a specific manufacturer.
That's not true here in California, where, if you have a rifle that actually says "AR15" on it (yes, made by Colt or some other manufacturers) it is unconditionally illegal unless you registered it when the "assault weapon" ban went into effect. If you have a rifle that says something else on it, it may or may not be illegal, depending on how it's configured. I am not making this up--our legislators are morons.
This flowchart describes the whole mess: https://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf
Tim
-
it's my understanding that the patent was sold to Colt.
Could be. That was in the 1960s so who knows.
-
That's not true here in California, where, if you have a rifle that actually says "AR15" on it (yes, made by Colt or some other manufacturers) it is unconditionally illegal unless you registered it when the "assault weapon" ban went into effect. If you have a rifle that says something else on it, it may or may not be illegal, depending on how it's configured. I am not making this up--our legislators are morons.
This flowchart describes the whole mess: https://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf
Tim
And that, my friends, is how you eviscerate the Second Amendment without actually declaring it null and void.
-
My Colt AR-15 is branded an M4 Carbine. Formerly it was called an LE6920. This law suit will go nowhere.
-
Remington Arms? Sounds like an upscale apartment complex.
-
Remington Arms? Sounds like an upscale apartment complex.
....or a really seedy one.
-
Remington Arms? Sounds like an upscale apartment complex.
That was Sanford Arms
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0694167/
-
That's not true here in California, where, if you have a rifle that actually says "AR15" on it (yes, made by Colt or some other manufacturers) it is unconditionally illegal unless you registered it when the "assault weapon" ban went into effect. If you have a rifle that says something else on it, it may or may not be illegal, depending on how it's configured. I am not making this up--our legislators are morons.
This flowchart describes the whole mess: https://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf
Tim
Welcome Tim! Aren't most of the CA AWB laws based on cosmetics, and mag capacity also? Just like the Clinton AWB?