Am I crazy - wasn't it a shotgun and pistol used at Sandy Hook? I thought there was an AR in the trunk of the car...
Edit - had it backwards. Shotgun in trunk.
Am I crazy - wasn't it a shotgun and pistol used at Sandy Hook? I thought there was an AR in the trunk of the car...
Edit - had it backwards. Shotgun in trunk.
Last edited by Zombie Steve; 04-15-2016 at 07:15.
Just had my launchers mixed up.
This is just one more example of how intellectually bankrupt the legal profession has become in the past 2-3 decades. Lawyers and jurists are frequently some of the poorest critical thinkers I've come across (then again, I don't circulate in the entertainment industry) but they have an incredible amount of power. Of course, the flip side is that those lawyers and jurists who are good are incredibly good.
This ruling is being misreported. Its not on the merits of the PLCAA defense. The court only ruled that it could not be raised with the motion to dismiss. Procedural ruling only.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2016/04/14/...-first-feared/
Sayonara
My prediction: The judge is allowing it to go forward because they plan on ruling that the PLCAA is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. That is, it is trying to prohibit them from practicing their religion of "ALL GUNZ R BAD MKAY!"
They're suing because the "advertising is aimed a trouble young men who become mass shooters", but the mom bought the gun. How many moms have ever committed a mass shooting?
Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est
Sane person with a better sight picture