Yeah, they do, but note that guns aren’t allowed at the NRA conventions.
You and your prior restraint
2 Likes
Why is everyone assuming that the Nevada state judges will be unfriendly to the industry that brings in a significant amount of the state’s revenue? Nevada is part of the ninth circuit, don’t know about the district judge(s) but if it goes to appeal, those judges are generally pretty progressive.
Also, it’s been a while since I took civil procedure, but IIRC the federal courts would apply state law anyway, except for matters of procedure and evidence, unless the claim is under a federal statute. So whether the victims have a valid basis for a claim against MGM would be judged by the same standard regardless. I’m guessing the advantage that MGM is seeking is to get a motion to dismiss more quickly than they might in state court.
I’m not sure, but all the analysis from legal experts mentions that this is the kind of judge they’re shopping for.
1 Like
Yeah I laughed so hard at that too 
2 Likes
Future headline: Mandalay Bay hotel owner sues boycotters:
4 Likes
Did yours get swabbed when traveling? Every time I took my Pelican case with camera equipment, it got swabbed.
I think the relevant point there is that there is a whole bunch of the victims who have already lawyered up. Any one who hasn’t already got a lawyer really doesn’t need to do anything. There are already plenty of parties who will argue against the claim, adding more lawyers to the defendant side really isn’t going to improve the chances of the defence succeeding.
If you’re not already involved in the claim against MGM, you can simply carry on with whatever you were doing.
I have to confess that as someone who is not a US lawyer, I don’t understand the federal/state distinction (Edit - but see below), why one would choose one over the other or why bringing a claim in a federal court is apparently so much worse than defending a claim in a state court.
Well that and the fact that the accountants really run everything so they get there first. 
Assuming MGM win their case, the rights were lost back when the SAFETY Act was passed. So, “Thanks, Dubya!” I guess.
BTW, for those interested, this seems to be the law suit in question:
MGM Resorts Complaint | PDF | Las Vegas Strip | Lawsuit
The answer to why they filed in federal court seems to be that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction due to 6 U.S.C. § 442(a)(2).
MGM also state that the people listed as Defendants are those who have already filed claims against MGM (currently all withdrawn, apparently with the intention of refiling) and those who notified MGM via Counsel that they planned to do so - so they are not randomly suing people who weren’t already planning to get involved in litigation.
They argue that the SAFETY Act provides a special set of rules to apply to claims arising out of acts of terrorism where security services certified by the DHS were used.
They argue that what Paddock did meets the definition of an act of terrorism as provided by the Act.
They argue that they used a security company certified by the DHS and that therefore any claim has to be tried in federal court under the SAFETY Act rules.
They further argue that the SAFETY Act states that if it was an act of terrorism and they used a certified contractor, any liability falls on the contractor not MGM (and the contractor is entitled to a special ‘government contractor’ defence unless they fradulently obtained their certification).
2 Likes
First of all, SCOTUS in recent years (as well as too many lower courts) has held that corporations have greater rights than people. This is necessary to make America great again. Truly awesome. (Trivia footnote: In the early 20th century, SCOTUS held the opposite view, that of course a business’ rights were lesser than a human beings’.)
In this case, though, what I don’t get is exactly how the hotel allowed the deranged killer to stockpile a shitload of guns and ammo without anyone batting an eye. oops, that might involve negligence which is to say the victims have an actual case against the hotel.
Can’t wait to see how this abuse of the courts play out.
1 Like
That was all pre-9/11; the case never had any firearms in it, and it was checked luggage with a sturdy lock on it that would have been broken by the Dept/ of FatherLand Security nowadays.
2 Likes
I use a US Army duffel bag for armor and a golf bag for weapons, which helps divert attention somewhat.
1 Like
It was pre 9/11 too, with camera equipment. You can see it is camera stuff in the xray thingy. But I still got swabbed every time. Maybe it was because of my KMFDM shirts?
I use those to cart my dirty laundry around… so they may contain a form of chemical weapons 
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
