They would have to prove Remington broke the law........ It's and money waster but Remington will win. Hopefully they can countersue for all expenses.
I'll preface this with the fact that I'm pro 2A. However, does anyone know if this is actually true?
The firearms maker violated Connecticut law by marketing the AR-15-style rifle “for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”
if that is true, then that is bad. I can't see that being the case. I can't see legal allowing them to put that on a product. If they in fact did, then can of worms has been opened. It's also not necessarily a bad thing for 2A, but a really bad thing for Remington and their marketing department.
Maybe in the 60's lolYea, I also have a really hard time believing that Remington would have even allowed a statement like that.
But If they dont win a serious precedent will be set...It will be fine. Remington will fight it and win. Then the precedent will be set for future rulings on the matter.
But If they dont win a serious precedent will be set...
I doubt it. This would be like Ford making a commercial for the Transit being good for snatching people off the street.I'll preface this with the fact that I'm pro 2A. However, does anyone know if this is actually true?
The firearms maker violated Connecticut law by marketing the AR-15-style rifle “for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”
You could be right, Marc. Guaranteed the lawyers representing the parents are stretching truths to extremes. This will surely be a case we'll be watching.If I recall correctly, this all spun from a single image advertisement, where Remington had depicted several purposes via role play imagery... showing police, military, youth hunters, and target shooters, all on the same advertisement image. I don't know... but I think that's what it is. I have to do some research... but a law suit against the maker its a stretch, at best.