Hlavní strana > Hledání

Vyhledávání slova "Liable".

RSS Přidej na Seznam.cz Add to Google
Prohledáno za: 0.262sec.

Čtete nejnovější články / Starší napřed / Zobrazit relevantní napřed

Strana: 1/ 491 Celkem nalezeno 4910 záznamů.

British Airways pilots CALL OFF September strike action – but warn of further walkouts if negotiations stall

Náhled

BRITISH Airways pilots have called off their strike due to take place on 27 September. The British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) said it was time to end the dispute before “irreparable damage is done to the brand.” Pilots were due to walk out for a third time this month, following the strike action on September […] Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Prozac Maker Paid Millions To Secure Favourable Verdict In Mass Shooting Lawsuit

Náhled

Everybody should know by now that pharmaceutical companies are extremely unethical, and that they have a very tight stranglehold over government health regulatory agencies like the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., pharmaceutical companies have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than […] Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry

Náhled

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry In 2005, a wave of lawsuits threatened to bankrupt the gun industry. These suits were based on — pick your adjective — “creative," "novel," "inventive," and “imaginative” legal theories that rarely held up in court, and they did their damage primarily by forcing gun companies to incur the costs of defending against them. Congress, seeing the problem, stepped in to put a stop to it — or at least tried to — by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).A decade and a half later, anti-gun activists have responded with yet more new legal theories, and the Connecticut courts have bought one of them. Some families victimized by the Newtown massacre are being allowed to pursue a wrongful-death claim against Remington, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle used in the attack.The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to take the case and reverse the Connecticut supreme court’s decision. It should, as numerous briefs from gun-rights supporters have argued this month.The problem here traces back to a flurry of legal activity in the 1980s and 1990s. Anti-gun activists faced a conundrum: It’s easy enough to file a wrongful-death suit against someone who committed murder with a gun, or to sue a company that sold a defective gun, or to go after a gun store that knowingly sold a gun to a criminal. But the activists didn’t just want to punish those who broke the existing rules; they thought the rules were too lax, and they’d had little success getting legislatures to change them.So they sued gun companies for following the rules, spinning elaborate theories about why different, stricter rules should apply instead. Those companies were creating a “public nuisance.” They were “oversupplying” guns to high-crime neighborhoods, or continuing to send guns to stores that had had too many crimes traced back to them, or making products that appealed to the wrong sorts of people. Never mind how bizarre it is to hold a company liable for the criminal misuse of its legal products; never mind that state and federal governments had already written detailed laws about which guns were legal to sell and how gun sales were to take place; never mind that the targeted companies were following the prescribed process of dealer licenses and background checks; never mind that the alleged “bad apple” gun stores were licensed by the federal government to continue selling guns. If legislatures wouldn’t draw the lines the way the activists wanted, maybe judges and juries would instead.Practically speaking, the problem with these suits was not that they had much chance of succeeding on the merits. The plaintiffs almost never won. Rather, the suits threatened to drown the industry in a sea of legal costs. Late in the Clinton administration, Andrew Cuomo, who was organizing lawsuits by federally funded housing authorities as the secretary of housing and urban development, told gunmakers they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts” if they didn’t give in to the gun-control lobby’s demands. Some gunmakers did in fact go bankrupt.So Congress decided to nip these suits in the bud. Under the PLCAA, there would be no more lengthy court proceedings: Whenever a court was asked to find a gun company liable simply because someone else had misused its products, the lawsuit would be unceremoniously tossed out. Contrary to some of the lies about the law spread in the media, it didn’t touch legitimate lawsuits. You can still sue gun companies if they sell defective products or break the law. Indeed, gun-rights supporters often cheer such lawsuits.Eventually, though, activists came up with creative theories as to why the law against creative theories didn’t apply.The case against Remington alleges that the marketing of the gun used in the Newtown massacre violated the Connecticut Uniform Trade Protection Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” This is relevant because the PLCAA allows lawsuits when a gun company “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” and the violation was a “proximate cause” of the harm at issue.There are several layers of problems here.For one thing, it’s not clear that a generic law like Connecticut’s is “applicable” to guns in the relevant sense. (The word can mean “capable of being applied” or “specifically applied.”) As 22 members of the House note in their brief, two different appeals courts have interpreted the word narrowly, and Congress clear Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry

Náhled

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry In 2005, a wave of lawsuits threatened to bankrupt the gun industry. These suits were based on — pick your adjective — “creative," "novel," "inventive," and “imaginative” legal theories that rarely held up in court, and they did their damage primarily by forcing gun companies to incur the costs of defending against them. Congress, seeing the problem, stepped in to put a stop to it — or at least tried to — by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).A decade and a half later, anti-gun activists have responded with yet more new legal theories, and the Connecticut courts have bought one of them. Some families victimized by the Newtown massacre are being allowed to pursue a wrongful-death claim against Remington, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle used in the attack.The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to take the case and reverse the Connecticut supreme court’s decision. It should, as numerous briefs from gun-rights supporters have argued this month.The problem here traces back to a flurry of legal activity in the 1980s and 1990s. Anti-gun activists faced a conundrum: It’s easy enough to file a wrongful-death suit against someone who committed murder with a gun, or to sue a company that sold a defective gun, or to go after a gun store that knowingly sold a gun to a criminal. But the activists didn’t just want to punish those who broke the existing rules; they thought the rules were too lax, and they’d had little success getting legislatures to change them.So they sued gun companies for following the rules, spinning elaborate theories about why different, stricter rules should apply instead. Those companies were creating a “public nuisance.” They were “oversupplying” guns to high-crime neighborhoods, or continuing to send guns to stores that had had too many crimes traced back to them, or making products that appealed to the wrong sorts of people. Never mind how bizarre it is to hold a company liable for the criminal misuse of its legal products; never mind that state and federal governments had already written detailed laws about which guns were legal to sell and how gun sales were to take place; never mind that the targeted companies were following the prescribed process of dealer licenses and background checks; never mind that the alleged “bad apple” gun stores were licensed by the federal government to continue selling guns. If legislatures wouldn’t draw the lines the way the activists wanted, maybe judges and juries would instead.Practically speaking, the problem with these suits was not that they had much chance of succeeding on the merits. The plaintiffs almost never won. Rather, the suits threatened to drown the industry in a sea of legal costs. Late in the Clinton administration, Andrew Cuomo, who was organizing lawsuits by federally funded housing authorities as the secretary of housing and urban development, told gunmakers they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts” if they didn’t give in to the gun-control lobby’s demands. Some gunmakers did in fact go bankrupt.So Congress decided to nip these suits in the bud. Under the PLCAA, there would be no more lengthy court proceedings: Whenever a court was asked to find a gun company liable simply because someone else had misused its products, the lawsuit would be unceremoniously tossed out. Contrary to some of the lies about the law spread in the media, it didn’t touch legitimate lawsuits. You can still sue gun companies if they sell defective products or break the law. Indeed, gun-rights supporters often cheer such lawsuits.Eventually, though, activists came up with creative theories as to why the law against creative theories didn’t apply.The case against Remington alleges that the marketing of the gun used in the Newtown massacre violated the Connecticut Uniform Trade Protection Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” This is relevant because the PLCAA allows lawsuits when a gun company “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” and the violation was a “proximate cause” of the harm at issue.There are several layers of problems here.For one thing, it’s not clear that a generic law like Connecticut’s is “applicable” to guns in the relevant sense. (The word can mean “capable of being applied” or “specifically applied.”) As 22 members of the House note in their brief, two different appeals courts have interpreted the word narrowly, and Congress clear Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry

Náhled

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry In 2005, a wave of lawsuits threatened to bankrupt the gun industry. These suits were based on — pick your adjective — “creative," "novel," "inventive," and “imaginative” legal theories that rarely held up in court, and they did their damage primarily by forcing gun companies to incur the costs of defending against them. Congress, seeing the problem, stepped in to put a stop to it — or at least tried to — by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).A decade and a half later, anti-gun activists have responded with yet more new legal theories, and the Connecticut courts have bought one of them. Some families victimized by the Newtown massacre are being allowed to pursue a wrongful-death claim against Remington, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle used in the attack.The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to take the case and reverse the Connecticut supreme court’s decision. It should, as numerous briefs from gun-rights supporters have argued this month.The problem here traces back to a flurry of legal activity in the 1980s and 1990s. Anti-gun activists faced a conundrum: It’s easy enough to file a wrongful-death suit against someone who committed murder with a gun, or to sue a company that sold a defective gun, or to go after a gun store that knowingly sold a gun to a criminal. But the activists didn’t just want to punish those who broke the existing rules; they thought the rules were too lax, and they’d had little success getting legislatures to change them.So they sued gun companies for following the rules, spinning elaborate theories about why different, stricter rules should apply instead. Those companies were creating a “public nuisance.” They were “oversupplying” guns to high-crime neighborhoods, or continuing to send guns to stores that had had too many crimes traced back to them, or making products that appealed to the wrong sorts of people. Never mind how bizarre it is to hold a company liable for the criminal misuse of its legal products; never mind that state and federal governments had already written detailed laws about which guns were legal to sell and how gun sales were to take place; never mind that the targeted companies were following the prescribed process of dealer licenses and background checks; never mind that the alleged “bad apple” gun stores were licensed by the federal government to continue selling guns. If legislatures wouldn’t draw the lines the way the activists wanted, maybe judges and juries would instead.Practically speaking, the problem with these suits was not that they had much chance of succeeding on the merits. The plaintiffs almost never won. Rather, the suits threatened to drown the industry in a sea of legal costs. Late in the Clinton administration, Andrew Cuomo, who was organizing lawsuits by federally funded housing authorities as the secretary of housing and urban development, told gunmakers they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts” if they didn’t give in to the gun-control lobby’s demands. Some gunmakers did in fact go bankrupt.So Congress decided to nip these suits in the bud. Under the PLCAA, there would be no more lengthy court proceedings: Whenever a court was asked to find a gun company liable simply because someone else had misused its products, the lawsuit would be unceremoniously tossed out. Contrary to some of the lies about the law spread in the media, it didn’t touch legitimate lawsuits. You can still sue gun companies if they sell defective products or break the law. Indeed, gun-rights supporters often cheer such lawsuits.Eventually, though, activists came up with creative theories as to why the law against creative theories didn’t apply.The case against Remington alleges that the marketing of the gun used in the Newtown massacre violated the Connecticut Uniform Trade Protection Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” This is relevant because the PLCAA allows lawsuits when a gun company “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” and the violation was a “proximate cause” of the harm at issue.There are several layers of problems here.For one thing, it’s not clear that a generic law like Connecticut’s is “applicable” to guns in the relevant sense. (The word can mean “capable of being applied” or “specifically applied.”) As 22 members of the House note in their brief, two different appeals courts have interpreted the word narrowly, and Congress clear Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry

Náhled

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry In 2005, a wave of lawsuits threatened to bankrupt the gun industry. These suits were based on — pick your adjective — “creative," "novel," "inventive," and “imaginative” legal theories that rarely held up in court, and they did their damage primarily by forcing gun companies to incur the costs of defending against them. Congress, seeing the problem, stepped in to put a stop to it — or at least tried to — by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).A decade and a half later, anti-gun activists have responded with yet more new legal theories, and the Connecticut courts have bought one of them. Some families victimized by the Newtown massacre are being allowed to pursue a wrongful-death claim against Remington, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle used in the attack.The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to take the case and reverse the Connecticut supreme court’s decision. It should, as numerous briefs from gun-rights supporters have argued this month.The problem here traces back to a flurry of legal activity in the 1980s and 1990s. Anti-gun activists faced a conundrum: It’s easy enough to file a wrongful-death suit against someone who committed murder with a gun, or to sue a company that sold a defective gun, or to go after a gun store that knowingly sold a gun to a criminal. But the activists didn’t just want to punish those who broke the existing rules; they thought the rules were too lax, and they’d had little success getting legislatures to change them.So they sued gun companies for following the rules, spinning elaborate theories about why different, stricter rules should apply instead. Those companies were creating a “public nuisance.” They were “oversupplying” guns to high-crime neighborhoods, or continuing to send guns to stores that had had too many crimes traced back to them, or making products that appealed to the wrong sorts of people. Never mind how bizarre it is to hold a company liable for the criminal misuse of its legal products; never mind that state and federal governments had already written detailed laws about which guns were legal to sell and how gun sales were to take place; never mind that the targeted companies were following the prescribed process of dealer licenses and background checks; never mind that the alleged “bad apple” gun stores were licensed by the federal government to continue selling guns. If legislatures wouldn’t draw the lines the way the activists wanted, maybe judges and juries would instead.Practically speaking, the problem with these suits was not that they had much chance of succeeding on the merits. The plaintiffs almost never won. Rather, the suits threatened to drown the industry in a sea of legal costs. Late in the Clinton administration, Andrew Cuomo, who was organizing lawsuits by federally funded housing authorities as the secretary of housing and urban development, told gunmakers they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts” if they didn’t give in to the gun-control lobby’s demands. Some gunmakers did in fact go bankrupt.So Congress decided to nip these suits in the bud. Under the PLCAA, there would be no more lengthy court proceedings: Whenever a court was asked to find a gun company liable simply because someone else had misused its products, the lawsuit would be unceremoniously tossed out. Contrary to some of the lies about the law spread in the media, it didn’t touch legitimate lawsuits. You can still sue gun companies if they sell defective products or break the law. Indeed, gun-rights supporters often cheer such lawsuits.Eventually, though, activists came up with creative theories as to why the law against creative theories didn’t apply.The case against Remington alleges that the marketing of the gun used in the Newtown massacre violated the Connecticut Uniform Trade Protection Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” This is relevant because the PLCAA allows lawsuits when a gun company “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” and the violation was a “proximate cause” of the harm at issue.There are several layers of problems here.For one thing, it’s not clear that a generic law like Connecticut’s is “applicable” to guns in the relevant sense. (The word can mean “capable of being applied” or “specifically applied.”) As 22 members of the House note in their brief, two different appeals courts have interpreted the word narrowly, and Congress clear Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry

Náhled

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry In 2005, a wave of lawsuits threatened to bankrupt the gun industry. These suits were based on — pick your adjective — “creative," "novel," "inventive," and “imaginative” legal theories that rarely held up in court, and they did their damage primarily by forcing gun companies to incur the costs of defending against them. Congress, seeing the problem, stepped in to put a stop to it — or at least tried to — by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).A decade and a half later, anti-gun activists have responded with yet more new legal theories, and the Connecticut courts have bought one of them. Some families victimized by the Newtown massacre are being allowed to pursue a wrongful-death claim against Remington, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle used in the attack.The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to take the case and reverse the Connecticut supreme court’s decision. It should, as numerous briefs from gun-rights supporters have argued this month.The problem here traces back to a flurry of legal activity in the 1980s and 1990s. Anti-gun activists faced a conundrum: It’s easy enough to file a wrongful-death suit against someone who committed murder with a gun, or to sue a company that sold a defective gun, or to go after a gun store that knowingly sold a gun to a criminal. But the activists didn’t just want to punish those who broke the existing rules; they thought the rules were too lax, and they’d had little success getting legislatures to change them.So they sued gun companies for following the rules, spinning elaborate theories about why different, stricter rules should apply instead. Those companies were creating a “public nuisance.” They were “oversupplying” guns to high-crime neighborhoods, or continuing to send guns to stores that had had too many crimes traced back to them, or making products that appealed to the wrong sorts of people. Never mind how bizarre it is to hold a company liable for the criminal misuse of its legal products; never mind that state and federal governments had already written detailed laws about which guns were legal to sell and how gun sales were to take place; never mind that the targeted companies were following the prescribed process of dealer licenses and background checks; never mind that the alleged “bad apple” gun stores were licensed by the federal government to continue selling guns. If legislatures wouldn’t draw the lines the way the activists wanted, maybe judges and juries would instead.Practically speaking, the problem with these suits was not that they had much chance of succeeding on the merits. The plaintiffs almost never won. Rather, the suits threatened to drown the industry in a sea of legal costs. Late in the Clinton administration, Andrew Cuomo, who was organizing lawsuits by federally funded housing authorities as the secretary of housing and urban development, told gunmakers they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts” if they didn’t give in to the gun-control lobby’s demands. Some gunmakers did in fact go bankrupt.So Congress decided to nip these suits in the bud. Under the PLCAA, there would be no more lengthy court proceedings: Whenever a court was asked to find a gun company liable simply because someone else had misused its products, the lawsuit would be unceremoniously tossed out. Contrary to some of the lies about the law spread in the media, it didn’t touch legitimate lawsuits. You can still sue gun companies if they sell defective products or break the law. Indeed, gun-rights supporters often cheer such lawsuits.Eventually, though, activists came up with creative theories as to why the law against creative theories didn’t apply.The case against Remington alleges that the marketing of the gun used in the Newtown massacre violated the Connecticut Uniform Trade Protection Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” This is relevant because the PLCAA allows lawsuits when a gun company “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” and the violation was a “proximate cause” of the harm at issue.There are several layers of problems here.For one thing, it’s not clear that a generic law like Connecticut’s is “applicable” to guns in the relevant sense. (The word can mean “capable of being applied” or “specifically applied.”) As 22 members of the House note in their brief, two different appeals courts have interpreted the word narrowly, and Congress clear Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry

Náhled

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry In 2005, a wave of lawsuits threatened to bankrupt the gun industry. These suits were based on — pick your adjective — “creative," "novel," "inventive," and “imaginative” legal theories that rarely held up in court, and they did their damage primarily by forcing gun companies to incur the costs of defending against them. Congress, seeing the problem, stepped in to put a stop to it — or at least tried to — by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).A decade and a half later, anti-gun activists have responded with yet more new legal theories, and the Connecticut courts have bought one of them. Some families victimized by the Newtown massacre are being allowed to pursue a wrongful-death claim against Remington, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle used in the attack.The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to take the case and reverse the Connecticut supreme court’s decision. It should, as numerous briefs from gun-rights supporters have argued this month.The problem here traces back to a flurry of legal activity in the 1980s and 1990s. Anti-gun activists faced a conundrum: It’s easy enough to file a wrongful-death suit against someone who committed murder with a gun, or to sue a company that sold a defective gun, or to go after a gun store that knowingly sold a gun to a criminal. But the activists didn’t just want to punish those who broke the existing rules; they thought the rules were too lax, and they’d had little success getting legislatures to change them.So they sued gun companies for following the rules, spinning elaborate theories about why different, stricter rules should apply instead. Those companies were creating a “public nuisance.” They were “oversupplying” guns to high-crime neighborhoods, or continuing to send guns to stores that had had too many crimes traced back to them, or making products that appealed to the wrong sorts of people. Never mind how bizarre it is to hold a company liable for the criminal misuse of its legal products; never mind that state and federal governments had already written detailed laws about which guns were legal to sell and how gun sales were to take place; never mind that the targeted companies were following the prescribed process of dealer licenses and background checks; never mind that the alleged “bad apple” gun stores were licensed by the federal government to continue selling guns. If legislatures wouldn’t draw the lines the way the activists wanted, maybe judges and juries would instead.Practically speaking, the problem with these suits was not that they had much chance of succeeding on the merits. The plaintiffs almost never won. Rather, the suits threatened to drown the industry in a sea of legal costs. Late in the Clinton administration, Andrew Cuomo, who was organizing lawsuits by federally funded housing authorities as the secretary of housing and urban development, told gunmakers they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts” if they didn’t give in to the gun-control lobby’s demands. Some gunmakers did in fact go bankrupt.So Congress decided to nip these suits in the bud. Under the PLCAA, there would be no more lengthy court proceedings: Whenever a court was asked to find a gun company liable simply because someone else had misused its products, the lawsuit would be unceremoniously tossed out. Contrary to some of the lies about the law spread in the media, it didn’t touch legitimate lawsuits. You can still sue gun companies if they sell defective products or break the law. Indeed, gun-rights supporters often cheer such lawsuits.Eventually, though, activists came up with creative theories as to why the law against creative theories didn’t apply.The case against Remington alleges that the marketing of the gun used in the Newtown massacre violated the Connecticut Uniform Trade Protection Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” This is relevant because the PLCAA allows lawsuits when a gun company “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” and the violation was a “proximate cause” of the harm at issue.There are several layers of problems here.For one thing, it’s not clear that a generic law like Connecticut’s is “applicable” to guns in the relevant sense. (The word can mean “capable of being applied” or “specifically applied.”) As 22 members of the House note in their brief, two different appeals courts have interpreted the word narrowly, and Congress clear Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry

Náhled

Frivolous Lawsuits Once Again Threaten the Gun Industry In 2005, a wave of lawsuits threatened to bankrupt the gun industry. These suits were based on — pick your adjective — “creative," "novel," "inventive," and “imaginative” legal theories that rarely held up in court, and they did their damage primarily by forcing gun companies to incur the costs of defending against them. Congress, seeing the problem, stepped in to put a stop to it — or at least tried to — by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).A decade and a half later, anti-gun activists have responded with yet more new legal theories, and the Connecticut courts have bought one of them. Some families victimized by the Newtown massacre are being allowed to pursue a wrongful-death claim against Remington, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle used in the attack.The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to take the case and reverse the Connecticut supreme court’s decision. It should, as numerous briefs from gun-rights supporters have argued this month.The problem here traces back to a flurry of legal activity in the 1980s and 1990s. Anti-gun activists faced a conundrum: It’s easy enough to file a wrongful-death suit against someone who committed murder with a gun, or to sue a company that sold a defective gun, or to go after a gun store that knowingly sold a gun to a criminal. But the activists didn’t just want to punish those who broke the existing rules; they thought the rules were too lax, and they’d had little success getting legislatures to change them.So they sued gun companies for following the rules, spinning elaborate theories about why different, stricter rules should apply instead. Those companies were creating a “public nuisance.” They were “oversupplying” guns to high-crime neighborhoods, or continuing to send guns to stores that had had too many crimes traced back to them, or making products that appealed to the wrong sorts of people. Never mind how bizarre it is to hold a company liable for the criminal misuse of its legal products; never mind that state and federal governments had already written detailed laws about which guns were legal to sell and how gun sales were to take place; never mind that the targeted companies were following the prescribed process of dealer licenses and background checks; never mind that the alleged “bad apple” gun stores were licensed by the federal government to continue selling guns. If legislatures wouldn’t draw the lines the way the activists wanted, maybe judges and juries would instead.Practically speaking, the problem with these suits was not that they had much chance of succeeding on the merits. The plaintiffs almost never won. Rather, the suits threatened to drown the industry in a sea of legal costs. Late in the Clinton administration, Andrew Cuomo, who was organizing lawsuits by federally funded housing authorities as the secretary of housing and urban development, told gunmakers they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts” if they didn’t give in to the gun-control lobby’s demands. Some gunmakers did in fact go bankrupt.So Congress decided to nip these suits in the bud. Under the PLCAA, there would be no more lengthy court proceedings: Whenever a court was asked to find a gun company liable simply because someone else had misused its products, the lawsuit would be unceremoniously tossed out. Contrary to some of the lies about the law spread in the media, it didn’t touch legitimate lawsuits. You can still sue gun companies if they sell defective products or break the law. Indeed, gun-rights supporters often cheer such lawsuits.Eventually, though, activists came up with creative theories as to why the law against creative theories didn’t apply.The case against Remington alleges that the marketing of the gun used in the Newtown massacre violated the Connecticut Uniform Trade Protection Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” This is relevant because the PLCAA allows lawsuits when a gun company “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” and the violation was a “proximate cause” of the harm at issue.There are several layers of problems here.For one thing, it’s not clear that a generic law like Connecticut’s is “applicable” to guns in the relevant sense. (The word can mean “capable of being applied” or “specifically applied.”) As 22 members of the House note in their brief, two different appeals courts have interpreted the word narrowly, and Congress clear Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Strana: 1/ 491 Celkem nalezeno 4910 záznamů.

Líbí se Vám tato stránka? Sdílejte ji s ostatními.

Přidat.eu záložku

uživatelské kanályVlastní zdroje: - -

Přidejte svůj vlastní RSS zdroj, který budete vitět pouze Vy na stránkách jednotlivých kategorií. Maximální počet na každé stránce je 8.

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

NWOO.ORG

New World Order Oppositton

Agitace za štěstí nebo za trvalé katastrofy?

Daniel Novák 19.09.2019, 10:10

V roce 2000 proběhlo v New Yorku promítání 37 sovětských filmů, počínaje dobou stalinizmu a konče počátkem 60. let. Veškerá tamní filmová kritika, která už neměla důvod bát se vojenskoprůmyslové moci „supervelmoci č.2“ a plnit politickou objednávku, jedním hlasem zvolala ve vytržení: „To je nějaká jiná civilizace!“ A to bylo správné hodnocení podstaty skutečného socialistického
číst...

Přehled zpráv – RusVesna, RusNext 18.9.2019

Božena W. 19.09.2019, 10:00

1; Eurobondy prudce poklesly po zprávách o „kompromisu“ s Kolomojským. Na cenu eurobondů měla vliv především zpráva o žhářském útoku na dům bývalé šéfka ukrajinské národní banky Gontarevové. 2; Státní tajemník USA uskutečnil rozhovor s ukrajinským ministrem zahraničí. Mike Pompeo telefonicky hovořil s Vadimem Pristajkem. 3; Estonský neúspěch. Bude Ukrajina další? Prezidentka Estonska varovala Ukrajinu
číst...

Přehled zpráv – RusVesna, RusNext 17.9.2019

Božena W. 19.09.2019, 09:50

1; Ruské letadlo MS-21 uskutečnilo první mezinárodní let z Žukovského do Istanbulu. 2; Naftogaz podvádí Ukrajince s cenami plynu. Naftogaz prodává plyn, který mohou využít v zimě, za vyšší cenu, než jsou ceny v ceníku. 3; Nacisté požadují od policie, aby propustila výtržníky zadržené po pochodu homosexuálů v Charkově. Demonstrace za účasti zástupců různých uskupení
číst...

P.C.Roberts: Armageddon na obzoru?

Lubomír Man 17.09.2019, 20:05

Příznivci prezidenta Trumpa by v těchto okamžicích, kdy se tento na popud Izraele chystá rozpoutat válku, měli učinit vše možné i nemožné v zájmu toho, aby je vyslechl. Vzájemná bezpečnostní dohoda USA a Izraele dává totiž Izraeli možnost zatáhnout USA do války – a to v zájmu Izraele. Útok na ropné pole v Saudské Arábii,
číst...

Exkurze do propagandistického skanzenu školství ČR

Daniel Novák 17.09.2019, 20:03

Pár slov úvodem Abych byl spravedlivý, tak dříve, než se budu věnovat tématům z výuky, je třeba nejprve uvést v jakých prostorách a v jakém prostředí žáci a studenti usedají do školních lavic ( nejen ) v ČR. Zatímco téměř všichni dospělí mluví o pohybu, prostoru, zdraví a čerstvém vzduchu, tak našim dětem dopřáváme přesný
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 12. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 08.12.2016, 12:37

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 11. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 28.11.2016, 15:53

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 10. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 23.11.2016, 01:35

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 9. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 16.11.2016, 13:26

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

S MUDr. Jonášem o zdraví - 8. díl

Kinosvět - záhady a tajemství 08.11.2016, 11:57

MUDr. Josef Jonáš, jeden z nejznámějších českých badatelů v oblasti přírodní a celostní medicíny, radí jak pečovat o své tělesné a vlastně i duševní zdraví.
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Tomio Okamura

Tomio Okamura: Tomio Okamura ve Svobodném rádiu 17.9.2019.

Tomio Okamura 18.09.2019, 22:05

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Tomio Okamura: Mnoho lidí nemá ani na zuby.

Tomio Okamura 16.09.2019, 10:21

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Tomio Okamura: SPD nepodpořilo rozšíření NATO o Severní Makedonii.

Tomio Okamura 13.09.2019, 20:47

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Tomio Okamura: NE zavedení evropského žalobce.

Tomio Okamura 12.09.2019, 18:25

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Tomio Okamura: Budou se navyšovat důchody.

Tomio Okamura 11.09.2019, 21:11

Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/tomio.cz Sledujte: https://www.facebook.com/hnutispd
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Česká televize

StarDance jede za Vámi! Flashmob

Česká televize 13.09.2019, 13:45

Doražte na jednu z našich událostí StarDance do Ostravy, Brna, či Hradce Králové a zúčastněte se tak naprosto originálního flashmobu. Jak se na něj připravit naleznete ve videu. 🕺 Odkazy na jednotlivé akce: ▶️27. 9. Ostrava https://www.facebook.com/events/714784212339612/ ▶️28. 9. Brno https://www.facebook.com/events/694771571022939/ ▶️29. 9. Hradec Králové https://www.facebook.com/events/382608159357237/
číst...

REPORTÉŘI ČT - Proč věří návštěvníci Čapího hnízda premiérovi

Česká televize 12.09.2019, 10:01

Anketa pořadu Reprotéři ČT s návštěvníky Čapího hnízda. Celý díl pořadu Reportéři ČT sledujte na iVysilani a nebo zde v odkazech. https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/1142743803-reporteri-ct/219452801240026/video/718068 https://www.facebook.com/reporterict/videos/2262678957192058/ Sledujet nás na našich sociálních sítích: FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/reporterict/ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/reporterict WEB: https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/reporterict #teaser #babis #navstevnici #capihnizdo
číst...

Reportéři ČT - Fiala M., Paclíková A. - Horká planeta

Česká televize 10.09.2019, 11:05

REPORTÉŘI ČT - Paclíková A., Srnka V. - V rybníčku pana kancléře

Česká televize 04.09.2019, 14:57

REPORTÉŘI ČT - Paclíková A., Srnka V. - Příběh jednoho podnámu

Česká televize 04.09.2019, 14:57

REPORTÉŘI ČT - Vondráček David - Vy tanky, my branky

Česká televize 04.09.2019, 14:57

REPORTÉŘI ČT - Vondráček David - Ve šroubovici Přemyslovců

Česká televize 04.09.2019, 14:57

REPORTÉŘI ČT - Vondráček David - Dědečci

Česká televize 04.09.2019, 14:57

REPORTÉŘI ČT - Vondráček David - Ve jménu národa

Česká televize 04.09.2019, 14:57

REPORTÉŘI ČT - Kutilová M, Klicperová L - Vzpoura běženců

Česká televize 04.09.2019, 14:57
Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

ParlamentníListy.cz

ParlamentníListy.cz

Česká politická scéna jako na dlani

Šok pro ČT: Nejen Zeman a Babiš! Takhle je to s rušením poplatků za TV

19.09.2019, 10:55

ANKETA Odhodlají se politici ke zrušení koncesionářských poplatků pro Českou televizi? Navrhuje to prezident Miloš Zeman. Podpoří ho v tom další představitelé státu? Pro částečnou realizaci má podporu premiéra Babiše i dalších politiků. Více v naší anketě.
číst...

Plukovník Šlachta promluvil. I o kauze Nagyová. Mnohým se to nebude líbit

19.09.2019, 08:51

V pořadu Téma 90 na ČT24 byl hostem bývalý ředitel Útvaru pro odhalování organizovaného zločinu Robert Šlachta. Oznámil, že za zátahem na Úřadu vlády, který poslal ke dnu Nečasovu vládu, si stojí a tehdy prý v jeho útvaru nikdo politiku neřešil. A na základu vlastní zkušenosti tvrdil, že v Čechách jsou snahy o to objednat trestní stíhání. Jmenoval kauzy Vidkun a Beretta. „Tyto kauzy byly zpracovávány a byla tam snaha objednat a dehonestovat prostřednictvím vyšetřování,“ řekl v ČT.
číst...

Takže pozor: Toto zachránilo Andreji Babišovi zadek

19.09.2019, 12:17

Na serveru Echo.cz se objevil závažný dokument, po jehož zveřejnění v posledních dnech mnozí volali. Usnesení státního zástupce Jaroslava Šarocha, kterým bylo zastaveno trestní stíhání premiéra Andreje Babiše ve věci „Čapí hnízdo“. Vyplynuly z něj důvody, které státního zástupce vedly. A mimo jiné také to, že si rozhodně nemyslí, že by jednání Andreje Babiše v dané věci bylo v pořádku, nebyly jím ale naplněny znaky trestného činu.
číst...

A Petříček mlčí! Tereza Spencerová žaluje Západ za jatka, o kterých se mlčí. Jde i o Trumpa. A o vás

19.09.2019, 08:51

OKNO DO SVĚTA TEREZY SPENCEROVÉ „Jen v bojích zahynulo možná až 100 tisíc lidí, miliony umírají nebo trpí v důsledku epidemií cholery, 10 milionů lidí je na pokraji hladomoru,“ doplňuje analytička Tereza Spencerová kontext k výbuchu ropného zařízení v Saúdské Arábii, který má přímou spojitost s přehlíženou válkou v Jemenu. Pokud jde o údajné zapojení Íránu do celé věci, všímá si Spencerová nechuti Donalda Trumpa jít do přímé války s Íránem. Ta však nakonec přesto může nastat a měla by následky, které by se dotkly každého z nás.
číst...

Vzpomínáte na radar USA? Napsal o něm Kalousek. Nutno číst

19.09.2019, 13:34

Poslanec za TOP 09 Miroslav Kalousek se ve svém příspěvku na Twitteru rozohnil vůči komentáři aktivisty a zakladatele iniciativy Ne základnám Jana Májíčka k desetiletému výročí dne, kdy Spojené státy oznámily, že na našem území již nechtějí postavit vojenský radar. „Popírat skutečnost, že iniciativa Ne základnám byla Putinovou pátou kolonou, sice na papíře jde, ale pravdou se to tím nestane,“ napsal. Nezrealizování amerického radaru pak Kalousek označil za „vítězství ruského impéria na našem území“. „Myslet si, že za konec radaru může Rusko, je naprosté přehlížení skutečnosti a slouží opravdu jen jako terapeutická pomůcka pro jestřáby, jako je Šídlo a spol.,“ komentuje naopak Májíček ve svém článku pro server A2larm.cz.
číst...

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Zvědavec

Skládáme střípky informací

Soud EU omezil tranzit plynu přes „Nord Stream“

Autor neuveden 18.09.2019, 01:10

Evropský soudní dvůr připravil „Gazprom“ o možnost využívat celkovou kapacitu plynovodu Opal, který plní funkci jedné z pozemních částí plynovodu „Nord Stream“ (čes. Severní proud). Informovalo o tom polské ministerstvo energetiky.
číst...

Kozel zahradníkem

Jaroslav Tichý 17.09.2019, 01:10

Před nedávnem došlo po velkých a nesmyslných tahanicích způsobených nestandardním postupem předsedy ČSSD v souvislosti s výměnou nominanta ČSSD na pozici ministra kultury ke jmenování L. Zaorálka na tento post. Prý proto, že jde o zkušeného ministra. Je-li tomu tak, pak nepotřebuje žádných 100 dní hájení. Pojďme se tedy podívat již nyní na počínání nového pana ministra po jeho nástupu do funkce. Stihl toho již docela dost.
číst...

Fake news posloužily k ospravedlnění totální války: výmysl o bosensko-srbském „táboru smrti“

Autor neuveden 16.09.2019, 01:10

Poprvé publikováno na webu Global Research 15. července 2015. Článek je staršího data, zařazuji jej za poslední článek Michala Branda Alan Kurdi jako symbol, abych ukázal, že falešné a úmyslně naaranžované fotky, které hýbou veřejným míněním a mění směr událostí, nejsou neobvyklé. Mainstream sahá k těmto desinformacím často a beze studu. No, hlavně že na ČT1 běží ve chvíli, kdy toto píši (neděle 22:20) propagandistický pořad To se ví, který „zábavnou formou odhaluje „falešné zprávy“. Editor
číst...

Alan Kurdi jako symbol

Michal Brand 14.09.2019, 01:10

K dnešní úvaze mne inspiroval komentář Tomáše Vyorala a jeho komentář k Alanu Kurdimu a symbolice jeho smrti a fotky. Alan Kurdi, ten malý syrský chlapec, který se utopil v Egejském moři. Jeho fotografie oblétly svět. Měly to být fotografie, které změní svět, jak psala pro-migrantská propaganda. A svým způsobem to tak i být může. Alan Kurdi je totiž opravdu symbolem. Pojďme se podívat na jeho příběh. A na fakta. Připravte se na tvrdou, hořkou realitu – daleko horší, než líčila mas-mediální propaganda.
číst...

Vtip a realita

Jaroslav Tichý 13.09.2019, 01:59

Podle některých odborných definic „vtip, anekdota, popřípadě fór, je krátké vyprávění, jehož účelem je pobavit příjemce (posluchače či čtenáře). Obvykle je založen na dvojznačnosti, absurditě nebo paradoxu, je stručný a směřuje k výrazné a úderné pointě. S ohledem na krátkost toho následujícího vyprávění zůstaňme u pojmu vtip. Příklad vtipu z filmu „Sedm statečných“: - muž vypadne z 10. patra činžáku; - a zatímco padá, v každém patře si říká, zatím je to v pořádku.
číst...

Obchodní války jsou hrou blázna

Eric Margolis 12.09.2019, 01:10

Podle brilantního vojenského myslitele, generálmajora J.F.C. Fullera, „cílem války není vítězství. Je jím dosažení politických cílů.“ Věčná škoda, že prezident Donald Trump nečte knihy. Zahájil ekonomické války proti Číně, Rusku, Íránu, Kubě a Venezuele bez jakéhokoli jasného strategického cíle, až na to, že se nafouklo jeho ego coby světového předního vojenského vůdce, a že tyto státy potrestal za jejich neposlušnost.
číst...

Pokud existuje něco jako vražedná kultura, pak je v Izraeli

Gideon Levy 11.09.2019, 01:10

Tohle napsal Benny Ziffer, redaktor přílohy Kultura a literatura izraelského deníku Haaretz, na své facebookové stránce poté, co se vrátil z osady Ofra, kterou navštívil v souvislosti s projevem soustrasti: „Cestou jsem se díval na palestinské vesnice podél židovských komunit, a pomyslel jsem si, že pro Palestince je vražda něco jako sport nebo zábava, možná je to náhražka za erotiku. Z tohoto hlediska s nimi nikdy nebudeme mít nic kulturně společného.“
číst...

Overtonovo okno: Když příklad dojde naplnění

Autor neuveden 10.09.2019, 01:10

Veškeré pokrokové lidstvo, jak nás označují, naprosto přirozeně přijalo homosexuály a jejich subkulturu, jejich právo uzavírat manželství, adoptovat děti a obhajovat svou sexuální orientaci ve školách a mateřských školkách. Snaží se nám dokázat, že je to všechno přirozený běh věcí. Lžou nám.
číst...

 

+ Přidej RSS kanál | Copyright (c) 2009 Seznam.name. All rights reserved. Created by Kukej | Kontakt | Výměna odkazů

0.8901