The U.S. District Court (Southern District of Ohio) has dismissed, with prejudice, the Primus Group v. Smith & Wesson, et al lawsuit. The decision was delivered October 9, eliminating the plaintiff’s claims against several prominent AR-15 firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Remington Arms Company, SIG Sauer, Sturm, Ruger & Company, Colt Manufacturing, and Armalite.

“This decision by the federal judge to dismiss with prejudice this frivolous case is pleasing, if not unexpected,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “These are lawful and federally-regulated AR-15 modern sporting rifle manufacturers that make semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes. The judge asserted that the proper venue to establish public firearms policy is through the legislature and not the courts.

The court found the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case against the defendants. This decision rightfully asserts that those who purposefully and criminally misuse firearms are the ones who are responsible for those crimes. It further affirms that activist lawsuits to prompt judicial action are not the proper avenue to establish policy.

Live Free

https://www.thelibertyden.com/singl...Is-In-Lawsuit-Against-AR-15-Manufactures

About damn time!

Good

A much needed victory.

Suck it commies!

He should have made the plaintiffs reimburse the defendants for all legal fees.

Jim

Put that judge in the running for next SCOTUS opening!

That's typically the result when a case is dismissed "with prejudice".

A great ruling! Thanks for bringing this to our attention: "watch4bear". I was waiting to see if CNN had the story.

***By the way, "prejudice" is a verbal spanking aimed at the the plaintiffs attorneys. *** In layman' language its: Don't bother us with your fricking bullcrap frivolous lawsuit again!

This is a lower court decision that can be appealed. I hope not. Can you imagine the horsepower car makers would bring if they were ever sued by a family for damages by a drunk driver? Why does that never happen?

Gee whizz. Criminals are responsible?
Cars go faster than " needed" so the same liability would be applied
The booze angle--- let's not go there

Thanks for that info. That is about the only thing that will stop this nonsense.

Jim

Should be front page news, but it's not.

finally some rational Judge at work.

Good news.