|
|
|
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:
Brady Organization Sues KCI and KCI USA Over 100-Round Drum Magazines
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The anti-gun Brady Organization is funding a Nevada lawsuit against the Korean company Kyung Chang Industry Co. LTD (KCI) and KCI USA over the company’s magazines.
The lawsuit stems from an August 2019 mass murder that took place in Dayton, Ohio. In that mass murder, a far-leftist killer murdered nine people and injured 17 others before being killed by police. The killer used a KCI magazine and an AR-15 style pistol. Since the magazine held more than ten rounds, the families claim it made the shooter “deadlier,” and KCI USA was negligent for selling the magazines. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(8/7/2021)
|
Suing a magazine maker with an illegal frivolous suit trying to bankrupt them, but really so you can tell your **** DONORS that you're taking "action" against those evil magazine makers, is really chicken ****, but at the same time, it makes me wanna buy a kci drum now.
All these lawsuits when federal law forbids it. Thanks remington for caving and handing the antis 33 million. So now these frivolous and illegal suits are being done to TROLL for settlements. Remington set the precedent. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
