Ocena teme:
  • 0 Glas(ov) - 0 Povprečje
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
spet o slovenski NRA
to je ameriška logika, kjer lahko tožiš vse in vsakogar. Tudi proizvajalca žlice, ker si se zredil ko si jo uporabljal...
Odgovori
(12-11-2019, 21:33)Sherman Napisal: Pa ne bi ti ljudje raje povprašali starše morilca, kako so ga vzgojili? Najlažje je kriviti fabriko, namesto da bi sami sebe vprašali, zakaj je generacija njihovih otrok zjebana.

Verjetno od staršev morilca ne morejo iztržiti toliko kot od fabrike. Čista logika (kapitalistična). :)
Zato pa imaš na štedilniku oznako pazi vroče. :)
Odgovori
Seveda če tožba uspe , potem si lahko predstavljate da bodo fabrke zelo hitro umaknile ar15 iz trga.
Odgovori
(13-11-2019, 15:20)mr.T Napisal: Seveda če tožba uspe , potem si lahko predstavljate da bodo fabrke zelo hitro umaknile ar15 iz trga.

Win-win za nekatere. Ne rabijo si mazat rok z zakonodajo, dovolj samo da par tožb spustijo skozi ...
Odgovori
Bodo dodali opozorilo, recimo nekaj takšnega Product is not intended to be used for killing people. Company XY is not liable in case of any direct or indirect mishap or misuse.
Odgovori
To bo že pestro ,odvetniki in lobisti bodo na kile vagal denarce.


Citat:The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that just one of the plaintiffs’ many claims could live to see another day. Until Remington’s challenge to the nation’s high court, lawyers for the Newtown families were able to move forward with their argument that the gun maker marketed its products in an especially dangerous way. Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University and PLCAA expert, describes the plaintiffs’ legal theory like this, “They’re saying that Remington was drawing high-risk people out of the woodwork to buy their product.”
Remington’s edgy marketing choices included promoting the Bushmaster XM15 as ‘‘the ultimate combat weapons system,” and touting its offensive capabilities. In advertisements, Remington depicted the gun in the hands of soldiers patrolling the jungle. One advertisement for the XM15-E2S included the slogan: ‘‘Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.’’
The families allege that Remington’s hyper-militaristic portrayal of the XM15 runs afoul of a Connecticut law that prohibits companies from marketing their products in unsafe and unscrupulous ways. That law is called the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and it’s a run-of-the-mill consumer protection statute that exists in some form in every state.
The Connecticut Supreme Court argued that this question — whether Remington’s marketing violated CUTPA — should go to a jury. If a jury finds that the gunmakers unscrupulously advertised a dangerous product, the gunmakers could be held liable for the deaths at Sandy Hook.



Citat:What did the gun companies ask the Supreme Court to consider?
They wanted the nation’s high court to consider whether PLCAA kicks this case out of court for good. Remember how I said that victims of gun violence can get around the law and sue a gun manufacturer if it violated a law? Remington and the other Sandy Hook defendants asked the Supreme Court, “Well, violate what laws exactly?”
The gun company defendants asked the Supreme Court to declare that gun companies can be sued only when they violate gun-specific laws. There are laws on the books that speak directly to the sale and distribution of guns, like prohibited purchaser laws. But then there are laws like Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law, which are broad trade regulations that address far more than just firearms. Are violations of either type of law a way around PLCAA? Federal courts are currently divided on this issue. (There’s more to this, and if your curiosity is piqued, please read this helpful explanation by Lytton in The Conversation.)
But since the Connecticut Supreme Court’s approach now stands, the law protecting lawful arms sales is much more vulnerable than it has been in the past, and gun companies could potentially be exposed to a “flood of lawsuits across the country.” Remember, every state has its own CUTPA-like law.
What are the implications of the case going to trial in Connecticut?
This would be a very big deal, because trials against gun companies rarely happen, thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This case would be one of a handful in which gun companies are forced to cough up documents on their manufacturing, marketing, and distribution practices. Those documents could answer some of the many open questions about the connection between above-board manufacturers and the black market for firearms. Right now, we only have hints about how gunmakers might facilitate the illicit gun trade.
It’s hard to say exactly what the Sandy Hook families could unearth through discovery in the Connecticut lawsuit, but we’re starting from a place of little knowledge. At oral arguments in 2017, the lawyer for the families told a panel of judges, “Remington may never have known [the gunman], but they had been courting him for years.” The plaintiffs are looking for information that would tell them whether that is true.




Citat:Family of Las Vegas Victim Brings Wrongful Death Case Against Gunmakers
The family of a woman killed in the Las Vegas mass shooting of 2017 filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against 11 gun manufacturers and dealers, accusing the companies of intentionally producing or selling AR-15 rifles that can be easily modified to fire like automatic weapons. 
Filed on July 2, the lawsuit targets Colt and seven other gunmakers, along with gun shops in Utah and Nevada. It charges the gunmakers with designing weapons that are “thinly disguised” machine guns, a breach of state and federal law. It also argues that the companies have shown a “reckless lack of regard for public safety” by advertising firearms as military weapons and suggesting that those same firearms could be easily modified. 

“These manufacturers have violated federal law by making a weapon that was built to unleash automatic fire,” said Josh Koskoff, the attorney representing the family of Carrie Parsons, who was 31 at the time of her death. Parsons, who had recently gotten engaged, was in Las Vegas for a girls’ weekend on the way back from a business trip she’d taken to New York.
During the shooting, the gunman fired 1,049 rounds into a crowded music festival in less than 10 minutes, leaving 58 people dead and more than 400 injured. Notably, the shooter used a firearm accessory known as a bump stock, which harnesses a gun’s recoil to “bump” the weapon’s trigger more quickly, allowing it to fire at a faster rate. 
The lawsuit contends that outlawing bump stocks, as the federal government did in December, won’t limit the scope of future mass shootings. “It’s not enough to say that because bump stocks are technically banned, that everything is kosher,” Koskoff said. “A bump stock is just a piece of plastic. The weapon hasn’t changed at all to prevent people from using these gadgets.”
The Las Vegas lawsuit is the latest challenge to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. In the decade and a half since the law was passed, gun violence victims have struggled to take legal action against gun makers.
Koskoff is also representing the families of nine children killed in the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting in their case against the gun manufacturer Remington Arms. That lawsuit argues that Remington, which produced the gun used in the 2012 shooting, irresponsibly targeted young, high-risk males with militaristic marketing and product placement in first-person shooter games. 
In March, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the families could go to trial against the gun manufacturer based on a state statute that prohibits unfair trade practices — in this case, Remington’s marketing strategy.

But unlike the Connecticut case, which hinges on the interpretation of a state statute, the Nevada case refers to the violation of both state and federal statutes, according to  Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University. In Nevada, the prosecution “is going to argue the we have clear violation against selling machine guns, which gives rise to negligence,” Lytton said. Essentially, it’s a more direct argument than the allegation that Remington violated Connecticut’s unfair trade statute. “This is a significant change, because it’s specifically tailored to firearms,” Lytton said. “Everything is up for grabs.”
Odgovori
Mislim, da ta stvar lahko leti le enkrat, in še to - "če". Če jim uspe izrabiti tale unfair trade practice in dokazati da je bil "unfair trade practice" v pomembni meri odgovoren za to dotično streljanje (obenem pa bi morali še dokazati ali je bila tudi v druga streljanja vključena "unfair trade practice" in če ni bila, je tale logika malo na trhlih nogah za sodišče), lahko Remington propade, vsi drugi proizvajalci (ki bodo med drugim pokupili tudi Remingtonove mašine na likvidaciji) bodo pač v prihodnje bolje premislili svoje oglase, da ne bo kdo mogel hakljat kakšnih sodb nanje.

Se pa strinjam, da je tale manever 100% načrten, ker omejitve prodaje orožja v ZDA ne morejo dati skozi zakonodajo brez kršitve 2. amandmaja, so namensko spustili skozi tale "lahko tožijo Remington" v upanju, da bodo z možnostjo tožb prestrašili prodajalce in na njihovi strani vzpodbudili background checks in ostale omejitve, ki jih sami ne upajo in ne morejo uzakoniti.
Odgovori
A ne temelji sodni sistem v ZDA na precedensih? Vse kar rabijo je en sam proces, ki gre skozi.
Odgovori
"Progresivci" pač terajo taktiko "Death by a thousand cuts" in zaenkrat jim še kar dobro gre od rok...
Odgovori
ma men tole diši ( smrdi ) po dnarju. Tožniki mal pomp delajo, da cena zraste, potem se bodo pa ''naenkrat'' pogodil za odškodninco, par miljinčkov, pa bo WIN-WIN. Vsi bodo zmagal, odvetniki bodo uspešni / plačani v % /, staršem ( moje iskreno sožalje ) bo zadoščeno - Remngton je kriv ! ... pa bo ''reklamacijo'' spreobrnil v marketing, ''ja mi smo svojo odgovornost pokril in nam je žal itd itd'', prodaja pa samo gor, saj bo do takrat ''Remington'' prva beseda, k ti jo bodo možgani dal, če te kdo vpraša : ''povej prvo besedo, ki ti pride na misel''

(14-11-2019, 17:21)JureD Napisal: ma men tole diši ( smrdi ) po dnarju. Tožniki mal pomp delajo, da cena zraste, potem se bodo pa ''naenkrat'' pogodil za odškodninco, par miljinčkov, pa bo WIN-WIN. Vsi bodo zmagal, odvetniki bodo uspešni / plačani v % /, staršem ( moje iskreno sožalje ) bo zadoščeno - Remngton je kriv ! ... pa bo ''reklamacijo'' spreobrnil v marketing, ''ja mi smo svojo odgovornost pokril in nam je žal itd itd'', prodaja pa samo gor, saj bo do takrat ''Remington'' prva beseda, k ti jo bodo možgani dal, če te kdo vpraša : ''povej prvo besedo, ki ti pride na misel''
...aja, pa da bi ameriški arm-lobby dopustil, da Remington zgubi, nevem, nevem ...
Odgovori
A ni imel remington s serijo 700 neke težave, kako se je pa tem rešilo?
Odgovori
s sprožilcem ja. rešilo se je mislim da z odškodninami.
Odgovori




Uporabnikov, ki berejo to temo: 1 Gost(ov)