If there was any sort of consistency in Constitutional law, then any fees related to gun ownership would be declared un-Constitutional Gun ownership is a constitutional right, as per the Heller vs. DC decision. Argument continue as to carry rights, right to own various type of firearms and magaince capty, but the core right of owning a handgun at home is settled. Yet, courts allow states to charge permit and license fees for simple gun ownership, and the above requirement for liability insurance, in a way that they'd toss out in 3 seconds laws about a book permit, or libel / slander insurance for exercising your 1st Amendments rights. The SC needs to put its foot down and declare that the 2nd Amendment should be treated in a similar matter as other constitutional rights. Hopefully they do later this year when the hear the case of New York's carry permit system, which is both discretionary, and charges high fees. And get rid of the intermediate level of scrutiny standard, which the lower courts use to relegate the 2nd off to insignificance.
Are you kidding? Most of those weapons which are the same weapons used in the majority of the crimes aren't registered anyway.
East side of town??? Just drive up and down the entry and exit ramps to the 101 and the Guadalupe hike/bike trail 1 mile south of the airport. Unless you're DD skills are on high alert you'll be on trial for manslaughter of a stoned out drunk.
Constitutional carry went into effect July 1 in Tennessee. I’ve seen nobody open carrying anywhere in public, but I bet more are conceal carrying.
McAuliffe slammed for saying voting should be ‘easier’ than buying a gun This guy has always been a complete joke; a big mouth joke. Yet for some reason Liberals like him. Draw your own conclusions about intelligence levels and emotional disturbances...
I see your point. That said, don't many bristle at any encumbrance at all to purchasing a weapon? Universal background checks is so popular that like 75% of NRA members are OK with it yet there is no cooperation from the NRA or the GOP.
Did you figure out what CMP means? It's a hilarious chart but possibly true. If only we all had a common bond. Guess it's not the flag or the anthem. Or white people.
I will actively root against any team who protests against the country who is allowing them to compete on the world stage. Oh the horror. Every other country is laughing at us because most would prefer to be here than there.
An attorney that doesn't do complete due diligence is engaging in malpractice. But the liberal media, of which VICE certainly fits, wants people to be outraged because corporate counsel is doing their job, which is to zealously represent their clients. If you don't think Plaintiff's counsel doesn't ALSO have some eyebrow-raising requests out, then you are deluded.
Oh, I agree that Vice is liberal media. 100%. That said, this request is deplorable. To call it "due dilligence" is like an SMU Athletic Director saying that they were just being competitive.
A 1st grade student's NI (Needs Improvement) on their report card clearly means that the child was not smart enough to evade a bullet from an AR-15. /s
You show time and again that you have precisely ZERO clue about practice. You don't know WHY they wanted the information, but due diligence is due diligence and a failure to properly evaluate ALL avenues DOES subject one to potential sanction. For all you know, this is a request to put to rest claims that have been tossed around about whether the students actually existed. It is NOT a defense to a Bar complaint that counsel claims "it was so preposterous that it didn't merit the time of a subpoena." Even SIMPLE litigation can result in multiple bankers boxes of materials being compiled. I cannot even begin to fathom the production efforts on either side in this case...
Whatever you call it the Remington lawyers are "zealously" trying to dig up dirt to add doubt to whether their client had any accountability in the death of these adults/children or estimate some amount of worth of their life. That's inclusive of the grade reports on kindergartners and 1st graders. It doesn't matter what the justification is (eg did the student exist) it's all salt in the wounds. I fully recognize the purpose of due diligence and that Remington's counsel would be negligent if they were insufficient in pursuing enough. The question is whether this is true due diligence or an attempt to intimidate or embarrass the families of the 5 students and 4 educators? You and I both know that's a not so uncommon strategy for attorneys. Any observer should be able to see that the report cards of 1st graders should have no bearing on whether they were at fault for getting murdered by a cold blooded killer in school. Nor should any economic damages be estimated based on a 1st graders academic, attendance or disciplinary records. They were 1st graders for heaven's sake.
