Dannyboy
Member
Just saw on FOX news that the jury in the NAACP gun case found in favor of the manufacturers and something like 60 individuals. I'm working on a school paper and just caught a bit of the report.
Because U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein decided the jury would play only an advisory role, both sides in the case will submit written arguments interpreting the verdict within 30 days. The judge will then make the final determination on liability and remedy.
The jury found Glock and Colt Manufacturing two major gun makers not liable. It did not reach a decision on Smith & Wesson.
...U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein decided the jury would play only an advisory role...
Common Sense. Hee hee hee.Firearm Industry Wins Major Victory With Common-Sense Verdict In NAACP Case
Shouldn't the target of their lawsuit be the federal government, the Treasury Department, and the BATF? They are the ones who approve, monitor, and control these "corrupt dealers"; not the firearms manufacturers. They simply sell their lawful goods to those who the government has deemed worthy of receiving them.The NAACP lawsuit alleged the firearms industry knew corrupt dealers were supplying their products to criminals in minority communities, and did nothing to stop it.
Yeah, I have a bit of trouble with the concept of "advisory juries" myself. I'm assuming that there was more than twenty bucks at stake, right?
What if Ford knowingly sold to dealer that Ford knew sold cars to known drunk drivers?I have a question, though. What if, hypothetically speaking, a gun manufacturer was actually guilty in this business of selling to bad dealers or whatever? Keep in mind, I don't actually believe this, but I'm curious how it would play out.