A couple of years ago, the state of Mississippi came up with a scam, stop all abortions after 15 weeks. The law was so ridiculous on the face of it, and so sloppily written that the first federal judge that clapped eyes on it declared it unconstitutional. But a more ideological appellate court ruled everything was just ducky, and now the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v Wade.
So what happened next? Every GOP controlled state with a whacktard Governor and legislature started dueling with each other to see who could pass the most restrictive abortion law. That way, if Roe survives Mississippi even marginally intact, they can be next in line for the privilege of taking the kill shot for Roe.
The Democrats need to take that page, and make it their own, at least when it can serve a positive purpose. And there is a glaring purpose that sticks out like Rudolph’s nose since the Uvalde school shooting. Parents seeking justice for their children’s stolen lives are stuck trying to sue the school, the police, or possibly the state.
That’s because gun manufacturers in America have a sweetheart law that protects them from personal or corporate liability for any harm caused by the eventual use of their weapons of mass destruction. Think of as a kind of MLB or NFL tax exemption as a national pastime. A bartender who sells the drink that gets somebody killed in a DUI is personally liable in many states, but 19 dead kids doesn’t cost the gun makers a sou.
So, you can’t sue these death eaters in federal court. But! That doesn’t mean they’re off the hook Scot free. Thanks to a bunch of dogged Sandy Hook families who refused to give up, and a sharp-as-a-tack lawyer with a nose for research, the Remington Arms Co. is now $73 million light in the wallet, and they also are forced to allow the plaintiff’s attorneys to release thousands of pages of internal documents regarding their marketing of their weapons.
This is because of a Connecticut state law. And no, the law has nothing to do with the actual deaths caused by the makers product. The Connecticut law allows survivors and victim family members to sue over Irresponsible advertising by the manufacturer aimed at groups, such as young people, who are not legally entitled to purchase a weapon. Remington settled rather than face an even stiffer penalty at trial for marketing specifically towards teens, using popular hooks such as Call of Duty references.
Here’s what I want t know. Why isn’t every blue state with control of the legislature not calling a special session to put the Connecticut law on their books? It’s obvious the Connecticut law is bulletproof, and here’s why. Remington didn’t even bother going to court and losing, and then appealing the law. They knew a losing hand when they saw one. And gun company lawyers are like insurance company lawyers, pure content specialists.Why not spread the joy around?
Look, Illinois has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but you can cross the border into Indiana, and come back packing enough heat to melt the polar ice cap. California has rock hard gun laws, but my adoptive state of Nevada has open carry, and during Covid, gun stores were considered critical infrastructure, and allowed to remain open. Even the playing field whenever and however you can.
And let’s not overlook the inevitable end effect. Right now, despite booming sales, US gun makers are lining up at the door to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. That’s one of the reasons that the NRA is feeling the cash flow pinch right now. Death merchants can’t afford to pay the freight for NRA corporate sponsorships. If more states start passing these deceptive marketing practices laws, and more state lawsuits are filed against gun makers, the bankruptcy line only gets longer.
But ultimately, it all comes down to a moral imperative. If enough states pass these laws, and enough lawsuits are filed against gun manufacturers, then the gun makers are going to be forced to examine their marketing practices, and make the necessary changes to keep them from getting sued out of business. And if that happens, then maybe vulnerable teens, especially emotionally troubled teens, won’t be exposed to gun advertising that makes them think that toting an AR-15 into a school or theater makes them Sargent fucking Rock! And innocent lives will be saved. Where’s the downside?
18% of these shootings are done by males 18-22 years old. They are only 4% of the population. Clearly they’re indoctrinated by those who profit by death.
PRO TIP: if you have more guns in your house than you have books, you’re part of the problem
And how about that horrid ad by the place that sold the guns used in Uvalde? “Train up a child in the way he should go…” with a pic of a toddler with a gun in his lap! The unspeakable GALL of pairing biblical advice with death merchandise!! Could that be a tort?
Not in Texas, of course.