Crime Commission punts

Months of study of no value. Whatever the staff was paid was way  too much.

Perhaps that’s why Obershain decided not to have the final meeting. He didn’t want to have to admit the dog ate their homework.

10 thoughts on “Crime Commission punts

  1. They punted on third down because they knew no matter what they recommended, it all would depend on who was in the majority come January 2020. The GOP had an inkling they would be the minority, so they shut the special session down after 90 minutes (I’m surprised it took them that long). Cowards From Obenshain to DeSteph. And ALL GOP members in between.


    1. I don’t doubt that they thought their report would be pointless in the face of partisan politics, but they still had an obligation to marshal the available data and experience into usable form for use by the General Assembly.

      That’s what an non-partisan commission(you are aware that it has Democrats as well as Republicans) is supposed to do, provide the objective data as best it can be determined, and leave the politics to the elected body.

      There is plenty of data available, from the FBI and the Rand Corporation that would be useful. Law should be based on fact and reason, not partisanship and prejudice.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Interesting. But, I wonder if another decision today will provide a way forward.

    SCOTUS refused to hear Remington’s appeal that the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit was in violation of the federal PLCAA law. Effectively, they agreed with the CT supreme court that the lawsuit could proceed, as the lawsuit falls under one of the PLCAA exceptions, to wit: a violation of a state trade practices law re how the product is sold and marketed.

    Quite properly, prior to this much of the lawsuit had been thrown out as violating PLCAA, however this aspect of the lawsuit remains.

    Remington’s marketing materials are in fact reprehensible, and I would imagine the Sandy Hook families will prevail. The marketing included descriptions such as:

    “military-proven performance for a mission-adaptable shooter in need of the ultimate combat weapons system.”
    “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered. Consider your man-card reissued.”

    You can say this is just sales shtick, but this goes to the heart of the problem with the gun culture: the fact that a gun manufacturer sees this as the way to sell weapons to civilians is frightening. I thought guns were for self-defense, hunting, sport? No, according to the gun manufacturer, it’s to make you a man and give you the ultimate weapon to kill your fellow human being.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It does sound like a stupid ad, but is there any evidence that Adam Lanza ever saw it, much less was inspired by it.

      Absent such proof, the proper course would be a directed verdict for the defendant.


      1. “Absent such proof,”… That is a bit of pre-judging on your part. I don’t think the lawyers would try to move forward without some sort of evidence supporting the position.

        “It does sound like a stupid ad”… Hard to disagree with you there. But keep in mind, not every gun owner has your kind of sensibilities. Not all gun owners are sucked in by such things. But like Saturday morning cartoons (do they even have those any more?) and the marketing that took place there, some could easily be persuaded


      1. Not sure, the brief is the usual lawyer make-work and I couldn’t easily find an exhibit showing where it was advertised.

        I wonder too, as to your comment above – it seems the case moves from being about Sandy Hook to a more general suit in which plaintiffs argue Remington broke the state law re marketing/advertising. Doesn’t need to be tied to a specific incident. Although, it would now seem to me that the state must take over and prove the case, before Sandy Hook or other victims would be able to allege harm and collect civil penalties. Can you have a civil trial alleging violation of a state law, when the state has not prosecuted as such?


        1. “Can you have a civil trial alleging violation of a state law, when the state has not prosecuted as such?” Not to be flip, but maybe you should ask OJ Simpson. Yes, he was prosecuted, yet found not guilty. He lost his backside in the civil suit.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s