|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CT: 2017 in Review: The Biggest Legal Developments in Connecticut
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The state’s high court heard oral arguments on whether families of Sandy Hook school shooting victims can hold gunmakers liable through negligent entrustment.
A trial court tossed out the lawsuit against gunmakers Bushmaster and Remington, makers of the AR-15 rifle used to kill 20 students and six educators in December 2012.
Thirteen amicus briefs were filed on behalf of 19 entities in what many legal experts believe could be a landmark Second Amendment decision. Among the amicus filings was a brief from the National Rifle Association on behalf of the gunmakers. Paul Clement, C. Harker Rhodes IV and Erin Murphy of Kirkland & Ellis stepped in for the NRA. They were also joined by Kenneth Slater Jr. of Halloran & Sage. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/30/2017)
|
| "Landmark decisions" do not come from frivolous actions. And this lawsuit is as frivolous as they come. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/30/2017)
|
| Screw your pay wall. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
