Readers, it’s Friday and time to get ready for a weekend of R&R and a little range time. I hope you’ve all had a productive week. I got through a couple of reviews and watched the Impeachment Hearings. I couldn’t stop laughing to be honest. In a six hour period Chairman Adam Schiff (The Esteemed One) produced two witnesses who’ve never met or spoken with the President, did not participate in or hear the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and who fundamentally disagree with any changes to Ukrainian foreign policy. Somehow, Chairman Schiff infers from their testimony, that President Trump was guilty of impeachable offenses. However, when witnesses Bill Taylor and George Kent were asked to identify any impeachable offenses the President could be charged with there was complete silence.
If you watched as much of this as I watched, you may be in need of therapy. STOP! Don’t even think about it because you’d be paying $150 + an hour to a jackass who studied psychology so they could understand themselves. Instead, schedule a shoot the shit!
A shoot the shit is a social interaction where any of the participants don’t need to know anything about the subject, they can make unsupported comments, use uncensored profanity, insult anyone the wish or change the subject. But, if that doesn’t get you to unwind, take in a little Chuck Berry.
On a more serious note:
Smith & Wesson
American Outdoor Brands announced plans to split its firearms unit, Smith & Wesson, from its outdoor products business, citing “changes in the political climate.” They plan on creating two independent public companies. The existing shareholders will receive stock in both new companies. The restructuring will be completed in Q3 – Q4 2020
Remington Arms v Soto
Issue: Whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s (PLCAA) predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes, such as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which forbids “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
The plaintiff argue that, Adam Lanza, the killer, chose the Remington rifle from his mother’s legally owned collection of guns because Remington’s advertisements for the rifle connect it with the military, a subject the killer was interested in. The lawsuit claims these advertisements constitute an “unfair trade practice” under Connecticut law and therefore fit into a narrow exception to PLCAA’s protection.
The SCOTUS, in their infinite wisdom, decided to allow to proceed what is, in my view , a totally frivolous lawsuit against Remington Arms. The courts all recognized that the guns and ammunition were purchased legally by Adam Lanza’s mother but it’s how Remington Arms advertised the rifle that’s the basis of their lawsuit. This is unbelievable!
Here’s my thinking:
How is Remington’s advertisement, false or unfair trade.
Advertising is covered by the 1st Amendment with exceptions for false advertisement.
The burden of proof is with the plaintiff so they would need to show that Remington’s advertising meets the unfair trade laws of the the State of Connecticut and that it led to Adam Lanza committing the crime.
Several people that I’ve spoken to today seem to think that the plaintiff will not prevail but as you all know, there are activist judges. I don’t want to tell you what the impact to the industry would be if the plaintiff prevails but I’ll summarize it as serious.
Think about it like this; you put a sign out on your front yard supporting Donald J. Trump’s second term. A liberal AOC supporter walks by, then goes home and kills themselves. You could be civilly liable.
Have a great weekend and bundle up, it’s getting downright chilly at the range. Forget social media, smart phones and schedule a shoot the shit with your buds or family instead.