Brill
SOF Support
Anyone here bought anything via CMP? Considering a Garrand...cuz ‘merica.
Anyone here bought anything via CMP? Considering a Garrand...cuz ‘merica.
I considered it but for the prices they’re asking for some GI’s ragged-out WWII rifle I’d rather build my own AR and put some nice glass on it. Or like a half-dozen SKSs.
Their 1911 prices are rape.
I considered it but for the prices they’re asking for some GI’s ragged-out WWII rifle I’d rather build my own AR and put some nice glass on it. Or like a half-dozen SKSs.
The M1 is a cool rifle, but it's not a great rifle IMHO, the caliber is all messed up, due to inflexible, stuck in the past leaders back in the day. It along with the British EM-2, FN FAL and the M1 were all supposed to be intermediate cartridges, but dickheads in the US Army screwed it up and put us 20 years behind the commies (and Nazis).
The best M1 I've ever used was a 7.62x51mm. Super accurate and fun to shoot.
new phone...who dis?
The M1 is a cool rifle, but it's not a great rifle IMHO, the caliber is all messed up, due to inflexible, stuck in the past leaders back in the day. It along with the British EM-2, FN FAL and the M1 were all supposed to be intermediate cartridges, but dickheads in the US Army screwed it up and put us 20 years behind the commies (and Nazis).
The best M1 I've ever used was a 7.62x51mm. Super accurate and fun to shoot.
“This is the truth and you are obstructing it. I’m not talking about the content. I’m talking about the art form. Do you understand?” he said. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. The Second is just in case the first one doesn’t work out.
It's enlightening how people who have spent very long times interpreting the law (please read this as a rejection of the notion of "one true constitutional interpretation) lack intelligence when they don't end up with the same legal analysis as non-lawyers.
The legal question is: The Connecticut Supreme Court below held that the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses all general statutes merely capable of being applied to firearms sales or marketing. In contrast, both the Second and Ninth Circuits have rejected this broad interpretation of the predicate exception, which would swallow the PLCAA’s immunity rule. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384, 402-403 (2d Cir. 2008); Ileto, 565 F.3d at 1134, 1136. And the Ninth Circuit interpreted the predicate exception even more narrowly than the Second Circuit. See ibid.
The question presented is whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a).
Moreover, Conn. is fighting this as a State's rights issue if I read this correctly:
"Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior. Following a scrupulous review of the text and legislative history of PLCAA, we also conclude that Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to extinguish the traditional authority of our legislature and our courts to protect the people of Connecticut from the pernicious practices alleged in the present case".
Docket for 19-168
The lawsuit against Remington alleges that the company’s marketing practices contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre. “Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” a lawyer for the plaintiffs said. But it is not clear that Remington courted Lanza at all — and it is quite clear that the company never courted him successfully, inasmuch as he stole the Bushmaster rifle he used in the crimes from his mother, whom he murdered. Connecticut has a law against “unfair trade practices,” which is a very odd way of looking at a mass murder.
The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42–110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. The plaintiffs’ first theory of liability was that the rifle is a military grade weapon that is grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes such as self-defense or recreation, that the rifle and other similar semiautomatic weapons have become the weapon of choice for mass shootings and, therefore, that the risks associated with selling the rifle to the civilian market far outweigh any potential benefits, that the defendants continued to sell the rifle despite their knowledge of these facts, and that it therefore was negligent and an unfair trade practice under CUTPA for the defendants to sell the weapon, knowing that it eventually would be purchased by a civilian customer who might share it with other civilian users.