https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...N0aYzVdFlIWkPThbeJiEQfNRCotFFuyQ6OWZtcv5K9Oc4 Supreme Court of Nevada rules gun makers-whose products were bought from retailers pursuant to all federal and state laws, cannot be held liable for Stephen Paddock's massacre four years ago
While good, its still troubling that "were bought from retailers pursuant to all federal and state laws" needed to be included there... it should simply be that manufacturers are not liable for how consumers misuse their products...
It means as long as the manufacturers were selling them to retailers only, and following the law to do it rather than intentionally breaking the law to make a sale, then they're good. IE they get the protection of the law so long as they avail themselves of the protection racket of the law.
What if makers of alcoholic beverages showed images of people driving drunk in their advertizements? Should they be immune to lawsuits? So makers of illegal guns also can't be sued. Pro-gun special interest groups must have a lot influence over the state legistlature there.
"alleged the manufacturers showed a “reckless lack of regard for public safety” by advertising the firearms “as military weapons and signaling the weapon’s ability to be simply modified.” It said there are dozens of videos online showing people how to install bump stocks." -how were the weapons 'advertized as military weapons'? -is this refering to legal modifications or illegal ones? -bump stocks are still legal for people with the proper ATF permitting given that they were simply re-classified as a 'full-auto modification'. It shouldn't be (and probably isn't) illegal to show people how to use them on the internet...
I never can get a gun banner to explain why a company that sells a legal product to a licensed wholesaler or licensed dealer and the weapon is ultimately sold to someone who passes a background check, should be liable for the ultimate use of the firearm. Gun haters want the guns banned and see this as a dishonest way to do it
