Reply #258: "The Court has ruled that a lawsuit [...] can proceed to trial."

[Euromutt]

This is simply a denial of a motion by Smith & Wesson's counsel to dismiss.

In other words, the questions of whether, as the City of Gary alleges, "the manufacturers know of these illegal retail sales of handguns, and know that a small percentage of dealers, including the dealer-defendants here, account for a large portion of illegally obtained handguns" and whether "the manufacturers and distributors have the ability to change the distribution system to prevent these unlawful sales but have intentionally failed to do so" have yet to be ruled. (Quotes from the ruling: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10290701jts.pdf)

It's also interesting to note that one question raised was:

Whether the PLCAA violates the Due Process Clause, separation of powers principles, and the Tenth Amendment.

Conspicuously absent, once again, is any mention of the Seventh Amendment, especially as affirming some "right to sue."

You really do have knack for reading into a document what you want it to say, rather than what it actually says, don't you?

Note that I didn't call you a Marxist, or call your opinions on private firearms ownership Marxist. I said:

You need to have some curiously Marxist mindset to think that any one computer or car is exactly equivalent to any other.

Did I imply you think one computer or car is exactly equivalent to any other? No, because I don't think you do, which is why I would find it strange that would subscribe to the notion that different models of firearm are wholly interchangeable.