If the First Amendment is in the way, bring it down.


This is a move that reeks of desperation.

With that type of marketing, the Sandy Hook families claim, “The Bushmaster Defendants attract buyers by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of their AR-15 rifles.” The complaint alleges that while the weapon is suitable for the military and for law enforcement — where it’s used for combat and limited police purposes — in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines.

Source: Sandy Hook Victims’ Lawsuit Attempts to Expose Rifle Industry’s Strategies for Marketing to Civilians


They have no legal or worse, constitutional standing. Are they are using the same Law Firm that was used to sue Cheaper Than Dirt and got the case lost via judicial spanking?


“Commercial speech” as a constitutional doctrine — initially (and even today) an exception from the First Amendment’s normal rules — was casually suggested by a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in 1942. Then, in 1976, it was altered substantially when the Court recognized that such a talismanic exemption from the Constitution’s mandates was unsustainable. Later, it was transformed by repeated Court cases that resulted in a solid First Amendment rule that commercial speech that is neither false nor misleading is fully protected speech. By 2001, the doctrine approached maturity when the Court recognized that even tobacco advertising was entitled to significant First Amendment protection.

Source: Advertising & First Amendment overview – First Amendment Center

Come on, the lawyers must know, are they really that stupid? Or is there something else?

From the original article:

“It’s a long shot,” Culhane concedes, but the plaintiffs’ argument holds powerful potential if the suit manages to reveal the thinking behind the riflemaker’s marketing strategy for the military-grade firearms. Positioning the case as a contest between commercial exploitation and parents mourning murdered children puts enormous pressure on the industry, he says.

Basically it is a two-pronged approach: Death by thousand legal paper cuts and associated expenses and gather enough material to use in public campaign to mute gun advertising via “shame.” I don’t know if Connecticut has the legal recourse of forcing the plaintiff to pay for legal and other costs if they lose, but if they do, Daddy Bloomberg better have the checkbook ready.

And as for shaming…Do we really look like we give two damns and a donut? It is not like Bushmaster took an ad in the New York Times or posted a sales banner at the local Piggy Wiggly. Gun advertising is pretty much localized in magazines and gun-related media.

I think they are grasping at legal straws. Mind you, Bushmaster is in enemy Judicial territory so the fight might not be over soon.

It is not just one Amendment they do not like…


Owner/Operator of this Blog. Pamphleteer De Lux. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.


  1. “Assaultive” qualities?

  2. ” in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines.”

    Really? All of mine are .223. Basically, a 22 on steroids. What is a “high caliber” anyway? 50 BMG? 458 Mag? I’m so confused.

  3. The funny thing is, ATF regs consider anything below .500 to be civilian legal, which means that by law there is no legal difference between a .17HMR, 5.56x45mm, 7.62×39, or a 12.7×99 rifle. ‘High-caliber’ is another one of those made-up bullsj1t terms (like “ammosexual” or “assault weapon”) that they are hanging their hats on in hopes that they get some mileage out of it and start generating fear.

    You are right, I smell desperation. And I don’t see this one flying any more than a concrete slab that lacks any thrust generation devices.

  4. I don’t understand the complaint about how big a tool is and any gun is just that.The car could be considered a killing machine if you wanted too but do they limit the size of them,no.When someone is target practicing is a gun a killing machine,no.It comes down to the use of something not the size of something.These are foolish theories by the left to try and proof a point that is really besides the point.

  5. Having no respect of citizens rights and loathing the second amendment they are happy to attempt the destruction of the first if it means obtaining some type of damage to the second. Removal of the Constitution as the wall against governments total control over our daily lives is the utopia they seek. It is the possibility of armed rebellion that is the only obstacle in their way as they know that it would be the end of their socialist dream.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

%d bloggers like this: