Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)

10. That's what the complaint says

Reply to flamin lib (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:32 PM

Apr 2016

What I'm asking is why do you think that Remington should be held liable? The firearm was legal for civilian purchase according to both the state of Connecticut and federal law. The firearm certainly isn't in use by any military in the world, and isn't any different from hundreds of other semi-automatic rifles available for civilian purchase (and again not used by any military).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

CT Judge denies manufacturer motion to dismiss in Sandy Hook case... [View all] jmg257 Apr 2016 OP

So not being thrown out of court is a "Major Win"? DonP Apr 2016 #1

"...going to run up the lawyers fees on both sides..." My thoughts too. jmg257 Apr 2016 #2

what PLCAA really means jimmy the one Apr 2016 #3

Setting aside the PLCAA TeddyR Apr 2016 #4

The suit alleges that Remington, aka Bushmaster, flamin lib Apr 2016 #9

That's what the complaint says TeddyR Apr 2016 #10

So ... Straw Man Apr 2016 #11

They hate the first amendment too, apparently. beevul Apr 2016 #5

To achieve every proposal sarisataka Apr 2016 #6

Whats sad... beevul Apr 2016 #7

Fixed that sarisataka Apr 2016 #8