A Setback in Connecticut: The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday said a lawsuit challenging how Remington marketed the rifle used in the December 2012 Newtown school shooting can proceed, overturning a lower court’s outright dismissal of the case. In a 4-3 opinion, the court narrowly ruled that families of victims of the Newtown school shooting can challenge whether Remington violated trade practices in how it marketed the AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting. “The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority. The case had been closely watched by advocates on both sides of the gun issue. It marks another case involving a 2005 federal law that generally shields gun makers and manufacturers from liability for crimes committed involving their products. Courts have dismissed other similar wrongful death lawsuits on those grounds. In 2016, a state superior court judge had cited the 2005 law, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in dismissing the Sandy Hook case. On Thursday, the justices ruled that while the lower court was correct in dismissing many of the plaintiffs’ claims in the wrongful death lawsuit, the plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed with arguments on whether Remington’s marketing of the weapon violated state trade practices... (Some list members may recall that the PLCAA was triggered by an orchestrated series of lawsuits by Democrat-run cities and that the costs of defending against those suits both drove up gun prices and pressured manufacturers to reduce production costs with such measures as polymer pistol frames and MIM internal parts. If the plaintiffs win a significant judgment, I believe that Remington might still be able to appeal it in federal court, citing the PLCAA.))

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...t-remington-c/

--

Silly Symbolism in Florida: A New Florida bill proposed by, you guessed it, a Democrat would make it against the law for a minor to post a picture of anything resembling a gun on Social Media. Democrat Jason W. B. Pizzo introduced SB 1310 into the Florida Senate. The bill would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to post a picture on the internet of a firearm, BB gun, airsoft gun, or any other device that resembles a gun. This law would also apply to realistic toy guns. The Miami-Dade Democrat's law would charge the minor with a misdemeanor. The fines can be up to $1000 per violation. In addition to the fine, authorities could also jail the minor for up to one year if convicted of violating the proposed anti-free-speech law. The law would also require the parents of the minor to attend parenting classes for reprograming. On the second violation, the parents could be forced to do community service in addition to further courses. The bill does not make it clear who would hold these classes or what they would teach the parents. This law would make it illegal for minors to share pictures of them hunting with their parent. It is a tradition for parents to take photos of their children with their first kill with the gun that they used to harvest the animal. This activity would now become illegal. If the minor takes a picture at the range with their parent while learning about gun safety, say at the Boy Scouts or 4H, [posting] that [picture] would also become illegal...

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/flo...res-fake-guns/

--

Advancing in Iowa: he Iowa Legislature has again passed a resolution that would add the U.S. Constitution’s gun protections by amendment to the state constitution. Iowa’s Republican-controlled legislature voted Wednesday to approve a resolution to amend the state constitution to declare that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment requires any gun restrictions must be subject to “strict scrutiny,” the highest standard of judicial review. Critics warned that would mean gun safety laws are more likely to be challenged and possibly overturned in court.The constitutional amendment similar to those passed in Louisiana, Missouri and Alabama must be passed again before it can be put to a statewide vote in 2022. It originally was to be voted on next year after Republicans pushed it through last year but a publishing mistake by Secretary of State Paul Pate meant lawmakers had to start the process over again. (Iowa is one of the six states that currently lacks an RKBA guarantee in its own constitution. The three cited above were expansions of or earlier clauses.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...stitutional-a/

--

A Victory – for Now – in Massachusetts: On Friday, a federal judge denied Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey's (D.) request that a suit filed against her decision to unilaterally redefine "assault weapons" be stayed. Healey had requested the stay because she believes a parallel case against her 2016 decision to expand the definition of banned "assault weapons" should be decided first. U.S. District Court judge Timothy Hillman ruled the federal case deals with factors beyond those at hand in the state case. "The Enforcement Notice warrants constitutional review for vagueness without reaching the state law issue," he wrote in his ruling. Healey announced on July 20, 2016, that she would be reinterpreting the state's decades-old "assault weapons" ban to expand what are termed "copycat" gun designs. At the time she accused the gun industry of using such designs to circumvent the ban... In reaction to Judge Hillman's decision to deny Healey's request for a stay, NSSF stood by its claims that Healey's actions were unlawful. "The actions of Attorney General Healy in 2016 were unconstitutional, leaving firearms retailers in Massachusetts unable to determine the meaning or scope of the Enforcement Notice and subsequent explanations," Keane said in a statement. "Because criminal penalties can result due to her unilateral reinterpretation of a state statute done without administrative process or input from affected parties, her office exceeded its lawful authority and retailers were deprived of their due process protections under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." (Infringement in Massachusetts is so severe that a list member there who'd like to purchase a discontinued S&W Model 646 – so that he can carry a revolver chambered in .40 S&W on duty – cannot do so as that model was never approved by the state and cannot be imported if he can locate a used one elsewhere.)

https://freebeacon.com/issues/massac...ts-suit-fails/

--

Smoldering in New Mexico: A New Mexico city has declared itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary city in a move to protest legislative actions they feel may infringe on residents’ right to bear arms. The Alamogordo Daily News reports the Alamogordo City Commission on Tuesday voted unanimously in favor of the symbolic declaration that is a resolution and not a law. Alamogordo Mayor Richard Boss says the city’s police department is still going to have to enforce the laws of the state of New Mexico. Alamogordo Police Chief Brian Peete agreed with Boss and added that he expects a constitutional challenge to firearm legislation signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. (As mentioned elsewhere, 30 of the state's 33 sheriffs have pledged not to enforce the new infringements. It sounds as though there may be a split between the city commission and the mayor in Alamogordo. Sheriffs stand for re-election while chiefs of police are typically appointed by the mayor or selected by the city manager. Alamogordo is located in Otero County, whose sheriff is not only among the 30 mentioned but has also passed a sanctuary resolution. According to 2017 estimates, Otero County is home to about 3.2% of the state's residents, with Alamogordo accounting for about 1.5%. Albuquerque, the state's most populous city, is home to about 26.8% of the state's residents.)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ndment-sanctu/