HUGE: 2nd Amendment in mortal danger!--Sup. ct. allows suit go forward against gun maker, Remington!

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
Supreme Court Allows Remington to be Held Liable for Sandy Hook Shooting

Second Amendment hangs in the balance

Adan Salazar | Infowars.com - November 12, 2019 125 Comments

Link: https://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-allows-remington-to-be-held-liable-for-sandy-hook-shooting/

The US Supreme Court is allowing a lawsuit against Remington Firearms to go forward, a move which may hold the gun manufacturer legally liable for the Sandy Hook school shooting.

On Tuesday, the highest court in the US refused to halt the lawsuit filed by parents of slain students against Remington Arms Co., which alleges the company promoted their Bushmaster AR-15 rifle “for use in assaults against human beings.”

Remington lawyers argued a 2005 law protected the company and “firearms manufacturers from being held liable for crimes committed by gun purchasers,” according to USA Today.

This “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,'” Remington lawyer Scott Keller argued.

“Congress enacted the (law) to ensure that firearms—so central to American society that the founders safeguarded their ownership and use in the Bill of Rights — would be regulated only through the democratic process rather than the vagaries of litigation,” Remington lawyers wrote in a statement to the Supreme Court.

But lawyers for the families claim the Sandy Hook case qualifies for a marketing exception in the law because of a Remington ad which “continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman, proclaiming: ‘Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.'”

Remington lawyers asked for the Supreme Court to step in after a 4-3 ruling in March by the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the plaintiffs’ case to go forward.

In that case, Connecticut Justice Richard Palmer’s majority decision stated Remington’s ad “violated CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act) by marketing the XM15- E2S to civilians for criminal purposes, and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre.”

The law firm representing the Sandy Hook families is also going after Infowars and Alex Jones, putting the First Amendment in as much danger as the Second.
 
Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Remington Sent Back to State Court

Written by Bob Adelmann

Link: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...it-against-remington-sent-back-to-state-court

When Connecticut’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling last March that Remington Arms was protected from a lawsuit by families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, Remington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Without comment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back the appeal that allows the lawsuit against Remington to proceed.

The essence of the case against Remington is this: The company is accused of violating Connecticut’s fair trade laws by deceptively marketing its Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle. The company’s ads touted the rifle’s looks and expressed its benefits in ways that the families considered deceptive. That’s important because one of the exceptions to the federal law protecting arms manufacturers from such lawsuits — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — is that victims are allowed to sue if a manufacturer “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that Remington’s Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle — the one Adam Lanza stole from his mother Nancy (before murdering her) and used to murder 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 — was “designed as a military weapon” and “engineered to deliver maximum carnage” with great efficiency.

They argued that Remington touted the rifle’s military appearance as a marketing strategy, including an ad showing a large picture of the rifle along with the text: “Forces of opposition, Bow down. The only rifle you need to master the infinite number of extreme scenarios you’ll face in the worlds of law enforcement and personal defense.” The ad called the rifle the “ultimate military combat weapons system,” adding that “It’s tested and proven reliable in the most brutal conditions on earth, truly ambidextrous and the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission-adaptable as you are.”

Another ad touted the rifle’s masculinity: “Consider your man card reissued.”

The attorneys chimed that somehow these influenced Adam Lanza to use the Bushmaster in his killing spree — that he was “encouraged” by those ads to use it to commit his atrocity at Sandy Hook. In its ruling last March that overturned the lower court, the state’s Supreme Court obliquely agreed: “If the defendants’ marketing materials did in fact inspire or intensify the massacre, then there are no more direct victims than these plaintiffs.”

Chief Justice Richard Robinson spoke for the Connecticut court’s majority:

If the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault [sic] weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.

The task the plaintiffs' attorneys will now undertake to bring down Remington — and by inference open the door to similar lawsuits against gun makers across the land — is monumental. They must first prove to the jury’s satisfaction that Remington “knowingly” violated Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law. Then they must show that the company’s ads were deceptive. Third, they must show that those ads influenced Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, to purchase the Bushmaster for herself (which she did, legally, in 2010).

This could end the quest to punish Remington all by itself. If defendants allow the jury to hear testimony from Nancy Lanza’s sister-in-law, Marsha Lanza, the case against Remington could be over. Marsha Lanza told WBBM-TV, CBS 2 Chicago that her sister owned a number of firearms “for self-defense and no other reason, because they were not a violent family.”

If that isn’t sufficient to protect Remington, then plaintiffs’ attorneys will then have to show just how Nancy somehow succumbed to Remington’s ads touting their masculinity in her decision to purchase the Bushmaster for herself. If that doesn’t work, they will then have to prove somehow that Adam chose the Bushmaster from his mother’s collection because of those ads. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs’ attorneys, neither Adam nor his mother Nancy will be able to testify, leaving the matter in the hands of the jury.

So there’s the mountain the plaintiffs’ attorneys will have to climb to indict Remington: Is the exception to the federal law PLCAA applicable to this case? Did Remington “knowingly” violate Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act? If so, did the company’s ads mislead Nancy Lanza into purchasing the Bushmaster back in 2010? And did they also somehow influence Adam Lanza to select the Bushmaster as the weapon of choice for the massacre of innocents at Sandy Hook?

This case is far from over. Following discovery, the final decision will rest in the hands of the jury.
 
Tacoma City Council approves taxes on guns and ammunition

November 14, 2019 by IWB
by DCG

Link: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/tacoma-city-council-approves-taxes-on-guns-and-ammunition/

The city modeled this tax after the Seattle gun tax which was designed to “improve gun safety.”

How’d that work out for Seattle? Well, Seattle has seen a 16 percent increase in aggravated assaults involving a firearm compared to the same periods in 2017 and 2018.

So without valid evidence that this gun and ammo tax actually decreases gun violence, Tacoma decided to implement it anyway.

Q13 Fox reports that the Tacoma City Council unanimously approved this new tax which includes a $25 tax on firearm purchases. Ammunition will be taxed at 2 cents per round for .22 caliber or less and 5 cents per round for all other ammunition. For those who like to shoot at the range, that will add up pretty quickly in a months’ worth of practice.

Council member Ryan Mello, inflicted with TDS, proposed the new tax. That’s because Tacoma is also experiencing an increase in gun violence this year. So of course the councilmember looked to punish law-abiding gun ownerspolicy to solve gun violence.

Just because a gun and ammo tax in Seattle didn’t do anything to decrease gun violence doesn’t mean it won’t work in Tacoma, right?
 
GOP Lawmakers Urge Attorney General to Defend St. Louis Couple’s Gun Rights After Firearm Confiscation

Jake Dima / @dima_jake / July 13, 2020 / 116 Comments

Link: https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/07...uples-gun-rights-after-firearm-confiscation/

Security personnel stand on the balcony of the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey as protesters demonstrate against racism and police brutality outside their neighborhood July 3, 2020, in St. Louis, Missouri. The McCloskeys gained national attention after brandishing firearms at protesters as they passed their home. (Photo: Michael B. Thomas/ Stringer/Getty Images)

GOP lawmakers wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr Friday, urging the protection of the firearm rights of the St. Louis couple that saw their guns confiscated after they went viral for defending their home against demonstrators, according to reports.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey were seen in a video brandishing a M16A2-style rifle and small handgun outside of their home as demonstrators broke through a private gate and encroached on their property line in June. Police executed a search warrant Friday and confiscated the couple’s rifle, and later their pistol, despite not yet filing any known charges against the pair, according to KSDK News.

dailycallerlogo
The dozen Republican congressmen who signed the letter to Barr said the decision to commandeer the family’s guns could leave a “chilling effect” on all Americans, according to Fox News.

“At this crucial time in history, our nation needs the Department of Justice to exert strong leadership to ensure that none of our constitutional protections are eroded by mob rule,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter, according to Fox News. “Charges against this couple will have a chilling effect on the entire nation, sending the message that American citizens no longer have the right to protect themselves at their own homes.”

Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today. But what side are you on? And how can you sharpen up on how to defend your position? Learn more now >>

In a video posted to social media, peaceful protesters in St. Louis calling for police reforms walked past a couple brandishing firearms as they were ordered to stay away from the couple’s home https://t.co/bYl06iAiTo pic.twitter.com/wOZ1Wr3yac

— Reuters (@Reuters) June 29, 2020 The signers of the letter were Reps. Louis Gohmert and Brian Babin of Texas, Paul Gozar of Arizona, Andy Harris of Maryland, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Greg Steube of Florida, Alex Mooney of West Virginia, Ted Budd of North Carolina, Steve Watkins of Kansas, Steve King of Iowa, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Jody Hice of Georgia, according to Fox.

Police arrived at the couple’s St. Louis mansion Friday with a search warrant and confiscated Mark McCloskey’s AR-15, he told Todd Starnes, a conservative radio host.

“We complied with the search warrant. They took my AR,” McCloskey told Starnes. “I’m absolutely surprised by this.”

Shannon Bream, a Fox News host, showed pictures of the warrant and photos of the officers holding the rifle on her show Saturday.

Fox News’s Shannon Bream shows photos of search warrant/police seizing the rifle seen in a viral video late last month showing the St. Louis couple, the McCloskeys, waving firearms at protesters marching through their gated neighborhood — https://t.co/a4R0F4hKIR — @dcexaminer pic.twitter.com/L1V59N9HyW
— Daniel Chaitin (@danielchaitin7) July 11, 2020

The pistol held by Patricia McCloskey was not initially confiscated during the search warrant, as it was in the hands of their former attorney, Al Watkins, according to Fox 2. Watkins gave the handgun to police on Saturday.

Watkins said the gun was “inoperable” well before Patricia McCloskey pointed it at demonstrators.

Watkins said the gun Patricia McCloskey was shown holding was not operable, and the inoperable nature of the weapon “significantly preceded” the date of the incident on June 28 https://t.co/EWPbfV7vnt
— KSDK News (@ksdknews) July 11, 2020

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


A Note for our Readers:

These are trying times in our nation’s history. Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today, with polar opposite viewpoints on public policy and the government’s role in our lives.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation asked world-class speaker, educator, and researcher David Azerrad to walk you through his research and outline the differences between the “two regimes” in our society today—conservatism and progressivism—and their primary differences.

When you get access to this course today, you’ll learn key takeaways like what it means to be a conservative, what “modern progressivism” is, how a conservative worldview differs from a progressive one, and much, much more.

You will come away from this online course with a better understanding of the differing points of view, how they align with your principles, and how to defend your beliefs.

Don’t wait—start taking “The Case for Conservatism” course online now.
 

The Police State’s Reign of Terror Continues – With Help From the Supreme Court​

by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute
October 5th 2021, 10:46 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-...r-continues-with-help-from-the-supreme-court/

With each passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that Americans can no longer rely on the courts to "take the government off the backs of the people."

In the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs, our so-called rights have been reduced to mere technicalities.

"Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges.”—George Carlin

You think you’ve got rights? Think again.


All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.

This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.

In fact, in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs, our so-called rights have been reduced to mere technicalities, privileges that can be granted and taken away, all with the general blessing of the courts.

This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Constitution being inexorably bled to death by the very institution (the judicial branch of government) that is supposed to be protecting it (and us) from government abuse.

Court pundits, fixated on a handful of politically charged cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term dealing with abortion, gun rights and COVID-19 mandates, have failed to recognize that the Supreme Court—and the courts in general—sold us out long ago.

With each passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that Americans can no longer rely on the courts to “take the government off the backs of the people,” in the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?


It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.

More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt, seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.

Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.

As a result, the police and other government agents have been generally empowered to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance.

In recent years, for example, the Court has ruled that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits; police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of “security”; citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it; police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside; police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime; police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike; police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense”; police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home; and it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.

Moreover, it was a unanimous Supreme Court which determined that police officers may use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. That same Court gave police the green light to taser defenseless motorists, strip search non-violent suspects arrested for minor incidents, and break down people’s front doors without evidence that they have done anything wrong.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

By remaining silent, the Court has affirmed that: legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police; the military can arrest and detain American citizens; students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school; police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law; trouble understanding police orders constitutes resistance that justifies the use of excessive force; and the areas immediately adjacent to one’s apartment can be subjected to warrantless police surveillance and arrests.

Make no mistake about it: when such instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution, one can only conclude that the system is rigged.

By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it last year that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct, the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state, “we the people” are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”

This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power.

Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated, convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity, which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to rig the system, ensuring that abusive agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose.

How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers knew their behavior was illegal because it had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time?

It’s a setup for failure.

A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”

Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”

For those in need of a reminder of all the ways in which the Supreme Court has made us sitting ducks at the mercy of the American police state, let me offer the following.

As a result of court rulings in recent years, police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion. Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing.

Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them.

To sum it up, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat.

So where does that leave us?

For those deluded enough to believe that they’re living the American dream—where the government represents the people, where the people are equal in the eyes of the law, where the courts are arbiters of justice, where the police are keepers of the peace, and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it’s time to wake up.

We no longer have a representative government, a rule of law, or justice.

Liberty has fallen to legalism. Freedom has fallen to fascism.

Justice has become jaded, jaundiced and just plain unjust.

And for too many, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the American dream of freedom and justice for all has turned into a living nightmare.

Given the turbulence of our age, with its government overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, profit-driven prisons, corporate corruption, COVID mandates, and community-wide lockdowns, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.
 
Back
Top