Hypothetical-Skullfkd Arms

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by gunsmoker, Mar 16, 2019.

  1. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,541
    683
    113
    A recent ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court says that the federal law called the lawful commerce in firearms protection act does not apply when AR-15 type weapons are sold to American civilians through marketing that emphasizes their combat or paramilitary nature .

    I don't know if the Court itself used the phrase "negligent marketing" but that's what they're talking about.
    Congress may have preempted and forbid any lawsuits against the gun company simply for making a legal gun and selling it to the public in full compliance with all federal laws, but Connecticut says that they have state level laws against marketing anything in a way that promotes violence and crime.

    So let's consider a more egregious example of "negligent marketing" when it comes to firearms .

    A new gun manufactuing firm is created as a start-up, and their business model is to supply cheap but powerful concealable weapons to people who aren't into the gun culture, don't feel comforable in gun stores, don't go to shooting ranges. Think "Saturday night specials" but with more horsepower and new features.


    SkullFkd Arms' flagship weapon is an over-under pistol chambered in 7.62 x 39. It's a derringer type action but with 6" barrels, a double action only trigger, and a built-in belt clip so no holster is needed. Suggested retail cost is $275 but special marketing and promotions will cause it to have a real world street price of only $199.

    This pistol is called the KopKilla.
    SkullFkd Arms promotes it in adversisrments, 30-second video ads online and print ads in magazines. The maker points out that the KopKilka has special features:

    1-- It fires full metal cased bullets at nearly 2000 feet per second, and will defeat all soft body armor of the type worn by uniform police and bodyguards and VIPs.

    2-- The entire gun's exterior surfaces are stippled or checkered, so that no latent fingerprints can be lifted from it.

    3-- The KopKilla's barrel is not serial numbered, and every stocking dealer afilliated with SkullFkd Arms has to agree to a barrel-exchange program where you can get a new barrel for $100 or a used one for $50, with your existing barrel as a trade-in. Your trade-in barrel will be professionally reconditioned with sandpaper and polishing compound to remove any ballistic fingerprints from the bore, and then it will be re-issued / resold.
    Any bullet fired through that barrel will have different forensic markings on it then a bullet fired before the reconditioning.

    THE MARKETING PLAN:

    SkullFkd Arms will not advertise in mainstream gun magazines or popular websites related to shooting or hunting .

    The company will market the KopKilka to the hip-hop, stoner, tattoo, and outlaw biker communities. print ads will be running magazines like XXL, The Source, and High Times. Also The Final Call, which is newspaper of the radical black Muslim movement The Nation of Islam. SkullFkd Arms will likewise buy online advertising at the Stormfront website for white supremacists, many of whom are felons and actively involved in making methamphetamines.

    The company will not have a presence the SHOT show, nor will its dealers set up any tables at a normal gun shows, but federally licensed dealers who are affiliated with SkullFkd arms are encouraged to set up vending tables at rap music concerts and sell their guns to the audience on their way out after the concert has ended.

    Flyers and posters will be displayed at liquor stores, and certain liquor stores will be given a stack of $20 off discount coupon cards to give away to as perks to some of their best customers, to let those folks save some money on their purchase of a SkullFkd arms weapon.

    **************

    So, the question is, coukd this be "negligent marketing?" Does federal statutory law or the First Amendment protect the company from suits filed by victims, or families of deceased victims, shot by KopKilla pistols?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,824
    828
    113
    No, its not negligent marketing.

    Its intentional marketing.

    Nemo
     

  3. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,264
    525
    113
    I think you have too much time on your hands.

    We need to get together an take my SR556 with it's new ATN X-Sight 4K Pro out and sight it in.
     
  4. GoDores

    GoDores Like a Boss

    3,034
    85
    48
    Sounds like they've preempted that problem. With no fingerprints or ballistic evidence, they'll never tie a murder to a KopKilla firearm :lol:

    Seriously, what is the value of this unrealistic hypothetical? Totally aside from the allusions to illegal uses, no one's going to make a terrible firearm for dirt cheap and market it through dealers to people who can't legally buy guns from dealers.
     
  5. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,710
    113
    And I have to agree with the previous 3 posters.
     
  6. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,541
    683
    113
    And now the U S Supreme Court has denied cert, and will not consider the issue, on a case where a state law against deceptive advertising and unfair trade practices can be considered a predicate offense by a gun company, first eliminating the federal protection of the lawful commerce in firearms act .

    The courts have ruled that when a gun company falsely labels assault weapons as suitable for civilian ownership (when clearly they're only suitable for military and police purposes....) the gun company broke the law, and their criminal behavior stripped them of any protection from the law Congress passed about not suing gun companies over the actions of criminals and crazies.


    "Negligent marketing" is the legal theory the Connecticut Supreme Court used in denying protection for the Remington Arms Company over the sale of one of their AR-15's to a woman who was later murdered by a criminal who then stole her AR 15 and used it in a public massacre!!!

    You think my hypothetical is silly?
    The highest courts in this land have said there's no problem with finding a company liable for advertising semi automatic assault style weapons to the public and that the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Protection Act passed by Congress has no application when the gun company "lies" to the American people by saying that these guns are suitable for regular private citizens to have.
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,710
    113
    Yes.

    So the case goes back to the lower court to be tried. So what? That doesn't mean the plaintiffs are going to automatically prevail. Remember that Lanza killed his mother - killed his own mother! - and stole her lawfully owned rifle which he used to commit the Sandy Hook murders. Where was Remington's "negligent marketing" that violated CT law directed, even generally, to Lanza? Most likely he never even saw any advertising from any gun manufacturer. The kid was a screwed up lunatic who killed and stole to acquire his weapon. Why couldn't Remington prevail at trial?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  8. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,824
    828
    113
    They could. But remember, they are in Connecticut.d

    Nemo
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Because dead little kids, crying female jurors, and somebody is going to pay, and it isn't Adam Lanza. That's why Remington couldn't prevail at trial.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Who are these highest courts in the land? I am aware of only the Connecticut Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled nothing. Are there more "highest courts in the land" with this ruling? And the basis of the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling was not that the company said "these guns are suitable for regular citizens to have." It is that they supposedly marketed these guns as mass killing machines. I have my doubts as to the factual truth of that matter, or that it lead to this incident even if it were to be true, but that is closer to what the CT S. Ct. ruled.
     
  11. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,541
    683
    113
    By not granting CERT, the supreme court is giving its stamp of approval to what took place in the courts below
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    The S.Ct. accepts only slightly more than 1% of the cases appealed to it. Attaching too much significance to the other 99% (that the court could never hear in a term, anyway) is a mistake.
     
  14. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,710
    113
    I agree with MP. That is not what the Supreme Court did.
     
  15. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,710
    113
    Absolutely. In Connecticut. Which is why it will eventually end up at the Supreme Court.
     
  16. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,541
    683
    113
    The lawful commerce in arms act is dead. Killed by leftist judicial activists who overrode the policy choices made by the legislature-- in this case Congress itself.

    The next lawsuit against a gun industry will tighten the noose around it's neck by alleging that the negligent and fraudulent marketing is based on the "false" idea that you can protect yourself with a personal defensive firearm.(Which all the liberal academics' study show is false; guns only put your life in greater danger --they don't protect you.)
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    LOL! Well, let's wait and see what happens in this case before we start predicting what will happen in future cases.