New Government Law Suit in the News!

L

loknload

New member
Well Comrad Clinton and his communist cronies are going to file a Federal lawsuit against gun manufacturers to back up the cities that have already filed theirs, I expect this to get hot and heavy with the recent shootings in the news again. This crap is getting a little tiring. Maybe I'm going to have to really start looking for what I'm going to do with my collection,They will not be donated to the government!

------------------
gun control is people control
 
I don't know anything about the lawsuit, but, think of it this way: if they do sue the gun manufacturers really badly, then gun prices will either RISE dramatically, or guns will be hard to come by because manufacturers will be afraid to sell, or both. Either way, your collection will be worth a lot more money.
I hope nothing happens, but all I am saying is that this is certainly no reason to sell your guns. In fact, it is just the opposite.
 
It would seem to me that this act by the federal govt gets a boost from their handling of microsoft, It will possibly have a "chilling effect" on pro-gun groups wanting to sue the mayors of the various cities in retaliation for their suits against the gun industry.
As for the value of any of our guns going up, if they ever declare that they are illegal they have little to no value monetarily and the possession or sale a crime,,,,,,what a nightmare that would be....fubsy.
 
Yes, declaring them illegal would make them hard to sell. But, we are not talking about the gov't making them illegal, and we are not even CLOSE to that. This discussion has nothing to do with that, we are talking about a lawsuit. This has nothing to do with whether they are legal or not. Law suits have nothing to do with making law, and suing a manufacturer for some abstract claim has nothing to do with outlawing the possession of an item. They just aren't related, so I don't see the connection.

Not only that, but if they ever did succeed in making them illegal, that would not necessarily make them illegal to *possess*. The gov't can outlaw the import, making them more expensive like "assault rifles" of today, or they can make it illegal to buy or sell them, like California is doing with hi-cap mags...but it is a far cry before the gov't can tell you that you cannot OWN something and force you to turn it in.
I am not keen on the laws and technicalities, but I do believe that portions of our constitution protect them from taking away stuff we own (4th amendment for one) and even though I am not keen on the laws, I do know that it would be a huge step for them to make it illegal fo OWN anything you already have.
 
I'm not looking to sell off. I'm looking to keep them away from the Government gun grabbers. And I really hate the thought if and when that day should ever come. Now these lawsuit happy boneheads see a bottomless money pit to compensate for what they cannot and are not willing to deal with, And its just keeps getting crapier for us law abiding gun owning citizens. This is just another instrument on the bandwagon for what ever may come

------------------
gun control is people control



[This message has been edited by loknload (edited December 07, 1999).]
 
Loknload...

Do you have a source or citation for this claim? I haven't heard anything about this.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Ok, will check. NBC news isn't on yet here in Cali :)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Ok, here is the skinny:

HUD (Housing and Urban Development) will file a class action suit on behalf of all federally funded housing projects by early next year. Un-named White House sources admit the motivation is to force the gun manufacturers to settle with the cities and to get a piece of the action. Officially, the motivation is to force the industry to tighten up standards, police itself and get rid of dis-reputable dealers.

Wonder if Ford, GM, Daimler-Chrysler could do that?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
redbull,
I was just extrapolating a bit their,,,but I know youve heard of california and the stuff they have made illegal and the deadlines they imposed on legitimate owners to turn in their firearms.....so it can happen in spite of our often touted much trodden constitution.

dc---can you say blackmail? the same tactics the govt used against tobacco and the gun industry does not have the same deep pockets to draw from.......so much for the constitutional protection from govt, and due process......fubsy.
 
Fubs...
Its not blackmail, its pure unadulterated extortion...pure and simple. If I did something like that to you I'd be in jail and you'd own all I have.

This is absolutely shameful, unacceptable and criminal. They are guilty of conspiracy, racketeering and this is a RICO violation performed by the Federal gov't

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
who says that the govt can't outlaw
firearms? has anyone ever heard of
prohibition? just think at one time
you could not even buy a beer,legally.
do you see the irony? if you wanted
alcohol you got it illegally! that's
the way it would be with guns. the
idiot liberals don't understand that.
clinton, in my opinion, is the worst
president the united states has ever had.
and just think the people of new york
are going to elect his partner to the
senate.
 
What gets me is that one of Clinton's claims is that gun-makers are making guns that are fingerprint proof.
That is so stupid. Basically he is blaming companies like Glock for making guns that don't rust and have plastic bumpy handles, and therefore they don't happen to hold fingerprints very well.

The thing is, these people, like Clinton himself in this claim, are purposely trying to make the gun manufacturers look evil. It makes gun manufacturers look like they purposely designed a gun that caters to criminals and won't hold a fingerprint. Is that stupid or what?

If a person just looks at the economics of this: 99.8% of guns are NOT used in a crime. Soooo, how does it benefit gun makers to make guns for ciminals? Logically alone, no company is going to market a product to .2% of it's users!

This is, of course, assuming that criminals BUY their guns, which is false anyway because they steal them. And lastly, this is also assuming that criminals use $400+ guns in crimes, which they don't, because they usually use very cheap guns.

It makes no sense, but Clinton himself this time is right out front in a campaign to make guns look evil by stating outright lies.
 
A tip o'the derby to SAF.

This from another board: "The Second Amendment Foundation has already submitted papers to the court system in Washington DC to sue the US Council of Mayors and select cities who are attempting to sue gunmakers. Today they responded by saying if HUD pursues lawsuits they are prepared to countersue them, too."

Sic 'em, Tige! Time for another donation instead of an NRA membership upgrade.

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top