Nick87
Well-known member
Probably be heading to Guantanamo soon, didnt get vaccinated either.Don't let big-gov know you are buing these . . . . (I can neither confirm nor deny that I have "restored" a few gas can to full function)
Judge Rules S&W Can Be Sued
- Thread starter 3855WIN
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Fully vaccinated, definitely not gas can compliant - livin' large in MN
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am ashamed to say that I used hard earned lawn mowing money to buy a Twisted Sister album back in the day, but definitely no Frank or Bob.
Nick87
Well-known member
Whether its tobacco or guns whatever it's a joke.
Nick87
Well-known member
I'm an outlaw on the run I guessFully vaccinated, definitely not gas can compliant - livin' large in MN
noharleyyet
Well-known member
I listened to Alice's Restaurant in California the summer of 1969...yep quite the disobedient civilian.
I draw art with my targets all the time...
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Pollock?
On a side note so as to not stir the gun debate pot with another firearm thread...
www.cbsnews.com
Federal court says restrictions on handgun sales to people under 21 are unconstitutional
"We refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status," Judge Julius Richardson wrote for the two-judge majority.
www.cbsnews.com
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I hate the fragmentation of "adult" into countless "almost adult/not quite adult enough" categories by the ever-growing nanny state. If you can go to war, vote, contract, etc then you should have full access to all the liberties, responsibilities and rights of adulthood.On a side note so as to not stir the gun debate pot with another firearm thread...
Federal court says restrictions on handgun sales to people under 21 are unconstitutional
"We refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status," Judge Julius Richardson wrote for the two-judge majority.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
So here is an interesting one, I clicked the link to this video and an add appeared for a CC holster, in the add someone with a knife approaches and the subject of the add draws his weapon from said holster.
This is at the very least implying one should commit an illegal use of force. It is an illegal use of force in MA, and probably in most states that do not have a stand your ground law, I have a concealed weapon permit in MA and I know the laws here, I can't speak to other states.
Specific requirement:
"Before a person may resort to deadly force he must (1) have reasonable grounds to believe and believe that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury from which he can save himself only by using deadly force; (2) has availed himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of deadly force and (3) use no more force than is reasonably necessary in all circumstances of the case."
Brandishing and menacing is also illegal in many states, so drawing your weapon in the conditions depicted in that ad are likely illegal.
In my mind that company is opening up it's to litigation for promoting illegal behavior with the use of it's products in their ad campaign.
If there was a SW add where someone was hosing down a herd of elk/pronghorn/deer with an AR would how would you feel.
Similarly, ski companies should not make adds about ducking ropes, car companies speeding on the highway or breaking traffic laws, or hog farms in using their pigs to dispose of dead bodies.
I think this all ties back to the idea of poking holes in our boat.
*If the assailant had a gun in the ad it would probably be ok in my mind, though still the legal use of force depends on circumstances, and even in that circumstance man not be justifiable.
I hate activist judges legislating from the bench. Which this might appear to be. We'll see if this stands. I don't think it will, given Scalia's opinion on Heller, and the history of gun law in the U.S.
So here is an interesting one, I clicked the link to this video and an add appeared for a CC holster, in the add someone with a knife approaches and the subject of the add draws his weapon from said holster.
View attachment 188371
This is at the very least implying one should commit an illegal use of force. It is an illegal use of force in MA, and probably in most states that do not have a stand your ground law, I have a concealed weapon permit in MA and I know the laws here, I can't speak to other states.
Specific requirement:
"Before a person may resort to deadly force he must (1) have reasonable grounds to believe and believe that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury from which he can save himself only by using deadly force; (2) has availed himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of deadly force and (3) use no more force than is reasonably necessary in all circumstances of the case."
Brandishing and menacing is also illegal in many states, so drawing your weapon in the conditions depicted in that ad are likely illegal.
In my mind that company is opening up it's to litigation for promoting illegal behavior with the use of it's products in their ad campaign.
If there was a SW add where someone was hosing down a herd of elk/pronghorn/deer with an AR would how would you feel.
Similarly, ski companies should not make adds about ducking ropes, car companies speeding on the highway or breaking traffic laws, or hog farms in using their pigs to dispose of dead bodies.
I think this all ties back to the idea of poking holes in our boat.
*If the assailant had a gun in the ad it would probably be ok in my mind, though still the legal use of force depends on circumstances, and even in that circumstance man not be justifiable.
i agree with you here.
but i think in a lot of states a jury would decide if that was illegal use of force. it's not just it is or it isn't.
i know in colorado the sheriff who taught my course cited the tueller drill in scenario like this - that a grown man can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, and if he has a knife 21 feet is reasonably too close for you to feel safe...
really irrelevant to your already valid point. but i find self defense scenarios such a fascinating area of discussion, and the more i discuss them, the less i carry my gun honestly.
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 1,949
Can drug companies be sued?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I would agree that this one ultimately survives the Roberts court. But I wish the legislators would quit passing "quasi-adult" legislation.
On a broader point, I have "enjoyed" watching over the years both sides celebrating the court's "preservation of the people's rights" when they happen to agree and rail against "activist judges" when they disagree. For many years it was largely the political right, but now that the political right's strategy of appointing judges when they have the white house has reached a critical mass, the left has become fond of the "concern" as well.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I think failing to fully navigate complex judgement rules re: use of force state by state is far less liability generating than overblown Rambo adds.So here is an interesting one, I clicked the link to this video and an add appeared for a CC holster, in the add someone with a knife approaches and the subject of the add draws his weapon from said holster.
View attachment 188371
This is at the very least implying one should commit an illegal use of force. It is an illegal use of force in MA, and probably in most states that do not have a stand your ground law, I have a concealed weapon permit in MA and I know the laws here, I can't speak to other states.
Specific requirement:
"Before a person may resort to deadly force he must (1) have reasonable grounds to believe and believe that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury from which he can save himself only by using deadly force; (2) has availed himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of deadly force and (3) use no more force than is reasonably necessary in all circumstances of the case."
Brandishing and menacing is also illegal in many states, so drawing your weapon in the conditions depicted in that ad are likely illegal.
In my mind that company is opening up it's to litigation for promoting illegal behavior with the use of it's products in their ad campaign.
If there was a SW add where someone was hosing down a herd of elk/pronghorn/deer with an AR would how would you feel.
Similarly, ski companies should not make adds about ducking ropes, car companies speeding on the highway or breaking traffic laws, or hog farms in using their pigs to dispose of dead bodies.
I think this all ties back to the idea of poking holes in our boat.
*If the assailant had a gun in the ad it would probably be ok in my mind, though still the legal use of force depends on circumstances, and even in that circumstance man not be justifiable.
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 1,949
It really is interesting. Everyone’s idea of safe is different, and our reactions to these situations are different. We humans try to treat them like concrete situations when they’re more like wet spaghetti.
Intellectual consistency is the hardest currency to keep. Legislators across the United States pass unconstitutional, bad, really dumb & patently unworkable legislation all the time. Perhaps if we quit electing buffoons, we'd have better outcomes.
I'm fine with 18 year olds being able to purchase handguns but then let's do lower the drinking age to 18, despite the science that shows encouraging youth drinking leads to life long dependency issues & more cost to society. I do have concerns about how we're eliminating safety protocols in places like colleges where firearms and alcohol will have some pretty undesirable consequences, and I'm not sure permitless concealed carry does anything but make the tactical chad and AK Karen contingent , or any of us, less safe. Both sides of this debate have gone stark-raving mad. Judicial activists are only going to make this worse as they play up their role in this debacle.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
One other thought - on the current court, Justice Thomas is the only rigidly consistent one regarding "fixing" legislation - he tends to live what Scalia preached (but sometime later in his time on the bench conveniently waivered on too). Gorsuch seems to have a bit of this bias as well, but less clearly. The other 7 are often picking winners and justifying after the fact in my humble opinion.
Last edited:
