The CEO of gunmaker Smith & Wesson on Monday blamed politicians “and their lobbying partners in the media” for a “crisis of violence” two weeks after House lawmakers subpoenaed the company for information about the manufacture and sale of its AR-15 style firearms. “They are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and…
couple things. through the florida state pension system we will do a flat fan fan on any type of esg and as you say they like to wiggle around and do politics and we are going to make sure that fiduciary duty is defined very clearly. and that they stick to that. we are also going to provide protection for people in the financial market from being discriminated against based on ideology. we have seen wall street banks discriminate against contractors who were involved, helping us against illegal immigration or against firearm manufacturers, things they don t like. the upshot of all this is we want to stop these masters of the universe from trying to do through economic power what they cannot achieve at the ballot box. it is an end run around democracy where they are trying to impose these things. in florida i want to be governed by the values of not the values of davos.
deletions. we feel we need a someone we can trust that will report directly to the american people and to congress as they should. we have asked sigi, the evere oversight board to appoint an acting ig for just the january 6th proceedings and what happened to these deletions and help us to retrieve them. we feel that since he couldn t report them, he s not going to be able to retrieve them. just minutes from now you ll hold a hearing to examine the responsibility that firearm manufacturers have with gun violence in this country, specifically the manufacturers are ar-15 weapons, which have featured so prominently in mass shootings we have seen in this country. what is the goal of today s hearing? well, the report was to look at the role of gun manufacturers in the soaring amount of deaths in our country. the last statistics were for
block. in his opinion last week, chief justice roberts, who is himself a conservative, begged colleagues not to make the decision they made because of the precedent this would set, undermining the course on authority. so according to this, how newsom is framing this, plaintiffs could sue firearm manufacturers and attorney fees. does this have legal muster? it is very much parallel to what the texas legislature did in passing that law. and the idea behind all of law is that you are supposed to treat similarly situated people in similar ways. but so in that respect you would think, well, if the supreme court is consistent, they would uphold this effort. however, if you are cynical about the supreme court, you will think they don t like abortion but they do like gun
this is how david wheeler, whose son ben was killed during the sandy hook shooting, this is how he reacted to that ruling. it s really important for us to be able to see how that marketing and marketing and advertising process is related to what happened to us. it s crucial. and this decision allows us to do that. based on precedent, how is this likely to play out? or do we know? it s likely to play out for firearm manufacturers that going forward at least, this case heralds a change in how they advertise and market. they have to be very cautious. because the lesson to be taken away from the connecticut high court today is that a firearms manufacturer or a seller that markets in a deceptive way can be drawn into court and they don t want that to happen. under federal law, firearms manufacturers and sellers, you correct me if i m wrong here, they pretty much have immunity