Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:
 


Smith & Wesson Sues New Jersey Over Deceptive Advertising Claims

smith & wesson

Dan Z. for TTAG

A leading firearms manufacturer alleges New Jersey is engaged in an “unconstitutional fishing expedition” to try to curtail gun rights by using a new tactic: false advertising claims.

In a federal lawsuit filed in New Jersey on Tuesday, Smith & Wesson claims New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has tried everything in his power to stymie gun sales, and that he is now sifting through decades of company advertisements and marketing materials in an extra-legal attempt to restrict the right to bear arms.

In October, Grewal filed administrative subpoenas seeking evidence of fraudulent advertising from the gun manufacturer. The subpoenas request documentation related to advertisements that claim firearms make a home safer, an untrained homeowner could use a Smith & Wesson firearm safely and effectively to defend his home, and whether guns enhance one’s lifestyle.

“The Subpoena presents no legitimate inquiry into any purported fraud, and instead targets mere opinions and other protected statements allegedly made by Smith & Wesson,” the company claims. It seeks a court order enjoining the subpoenas and declaring them unconstitutional.

Citing 248 million results in Google searches of “do guns make you safer” as proof that many Americans believe firearms make them safer, Smith & Wesson says New Jersey’s false advertisement subpoenas should be a dead-end legal theory.

— Nick Rummell in Smith & Wesson Sues New Jersey Over ‘Anti-Second Amendment Agenda’

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    waiting for nj ag to cite Kellerman.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      they never stop trying…no matter how strained their “logic” …..

  2. avatar eagle10 says:

    Well, it’s NJ what do you expect – guberment officials with brains? 😆

    1. avatar rtw1951 says:

      You mean goobermint, right?

      1. avatar eagle10 says:

        Either or – they can’t spell or understand simple words. They need help when they have to take a shiit.

        1. avatar Randy Jones says:

          I really get tired of all you people picking on our elected officials like they are a bunch of A$$#oles. That is a false narrative. A good A$$#ole help rid the body of fecal material. To compare an A$$#ole to a politician is an insult to A$$#oles.

    2. avatar Hush says:

      SFB, shit for brains……..

  3. avatar RGP says:

    I’m appalled by the attorney general’s Sikh-ening behavior.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Careful you may get Pun-ished for your views. Oddly the only group I have ever interacted with that was either full SHALL or only police should have guns. I am sure there is middle ground as I only interacted with a dozen or so bit funny how that goes sometimes.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        The ‘guns are for governments’ types like Grubby are going against Sikh teachings.

        Sometimes I’m surprised his fellow Sikhs don’t run his head up the flagpole at the state capitol.

      2. avatar Prndll says:

        The police are people too. They fall under the Constitutional right to keep and arm bears. Police should have guns AND so should everyone else. The only ones in question are those that have no regard for the sanctity of human life. Anyone like that should be removed from civil society regardless of anything that has anything to do with guns.

        If our society is to even have law enforcement officers…they need guns
        If our society is to be a civil one…the general population needs guns
        If our nation is to remain sovereign…it’s citizens need guns

        1. avatar David says:

          If a bad guy with a gun thinks someone inside has a gun they’ll skip your house. I don’t know why anti-gunner think we’re all crazy? I’ve had guns my whole life and never shot anyone and I’m 55 years old. If the people with guns legally wanted to start trouble it would be over by now. We’re here to help and protect our loved ones and maybe you if a situation happens and there’s no police to help. Tell me this if a guy is holding up a store and says he’s gonna kill people one at a time unless he gets what he wants. Would you want a person to have a gun on them to take the scumbag out?? Anyone in their right mind would . What if they were trying to take your child?? Bad guys are afraid of good guys with a gun.

        2. avatar Prndll says:

          @David:
          I’m not convinced that a bad guy would skip over homes they knew had guns. I’m more inclined to think exactly the opposite. That it would incentivize a break in just to get that gun. That’s like truly believing the sound of racking a shotgun would scare them away. If that were the case, most of what we’ve seen this year with BLM and Antifa would not have happened. We are dealing with people that have little or no fear and often little if anything to lose. People pushed by large amounts of money and a big chip on their shoulders.

          I believe it’s high time for people to wake up to the reality that this is not the same world it used to be.

          Best of luck to you sir.

        3. avatar David says:

          @Prnll
          Can’t disagree with all the nuts out there but maybe where I am in Kentucky we don’t really see the same criminals. Most around here have guns so it’s not the same. You cross the river into Cincinnati and it’s a whole different ballgame. More of the situation that you’re talking about. Good luck to you and have a nice holiday..

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      He isn’t much of a Sikh if he opposed self defense.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        True that. It is a deeply cultural and historical tenet for a Sihk.

        From Wikipedia:
        “Sikhs are expected to embody the qualities of a Sant Sipahi or “saint-soldier,” showing no fear on the battlefield and treating defeated enemies humanely. The Bhagat further defines the qualities of a sant sipahi as one who is “truly brave…who fights for the deprived.”

        For a Sikh to deny the necessity and moral propriety of being armed for defense of self and others is to be less than a true believer and practitioner of the faith.

  4. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Like google, twitter et al the Jim Crow Gun Control NJ AG is also wanting to Control Free Speech. When the lives of you and yours are on the line and if you can pull a trigger a Firearm will help save your bacon. Of course survival odds increase for those with more trigger time, etc. On the other hand…A moron AG who has the means to defend his sorry behind telling snowflakes that having a gun is more bad than good makes desert for a criminal pos. The choice is simple…Be a target for a criminal or make the criminal the target.

  5. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    1st ammendment, 2nd, dont matter! Us subjects arent smart enough to know how to use em. Get ready for Obummer’s third term, this time he’s not holding back.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      The self serving lord marshal b. h. obama was crowned by the democRat Party to be the First Black President although he is one half white which in reality makes him the First Half Black President. The “Content of Character” of b. h. obama consists mostly from being mentored for years by his so-called “neighbor” the lily white communist terrorist “kill your parents” weather underground, Prairie Fire bill ayers.
      Most people with a lick of sense hear of a turd advising followers to “kill their parents” head the other way but not b. h. obama so obviously he must be OK with such filth.
      The problem for dumb and dumber Americans is they do not have a clue about what a shthead b. h. obama is. To make a long story short…To know what is in the head of bill ayers is to know what is in the head of b. h. obama. All he has going for him is, “He Looks Black.”

  6. avatar Prndll says:

    248 million Google searches does NOT mean people think guns make them safer. It means people searched that term. It’s also an indication that people might not realize that there are other search engines.

    If Smith&Wesson actually listened to it’s own customer (or potential customer) base, it would be trying to get rid of the ‘Hillary hole’.

    This is a great example of what the problem is.

    1. avatar Pb_fan59 says:

      Yeah, not gonna happen… getting rid of the hole would be like GM abandoning perceived safety features like anti-lock brakes or VSC system. The first lawsuit after some dumbass gets killed in a mishap, whether or not the lack of said systems were relavent, would be curtains for them. Once you comply, your options go bye.

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        Anti-lock brakes actually do have a beneficial mechanical purpose as it can react faster than people can under most circumstances. I will defend that but the plethora of ‘safety’ features and added devices to motor vehicles have certainly made it so that people no longer need to know how to drive anymore. I see the results of that every single day out on the roads.

        I completely agree that we have become overly litigious. It’s already to the point of not being able to function anymore. The only ones that win with that are lawyers. Which just happened to be what makes up the biggest portion of elected officials in this country.

    2. avatar Dave G. says:

      Prndll:
      The last time I looked, Smith & Wesson still had some revolvers in their lineup without a “Hillary hole.”

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        Yes, I know. This is what I’m talking about. It’s proof enough that it’s not needed. Meanwhile there are plenty of people making choices based on it. All it does is embody a level of ridiculousness and symbolize the impact of the Clintons.

      2. avatar My2cents says:

        That’s true. I picked up a new 442 performance center revolver a couple of years ago. Also S&W aren’t the only revolver manufacturer out there and there are revolvers in production that don’t have external safeties.

  7. avatar Nate in CA says:

    We live in a time when Tweets and TikToks are newsworthy and Google searches as suddenly legal research…

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Because our projectile weapons are no longer the most effective weapon. Information is the most effective weapon in this war.

      1. avatar Sum Ting Wong says:

        And who controls the flow of information?

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Captain Wong, ask Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk, and Bang Ding Ow about that :

  8. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    “In October, Grewal filed administrative subpoenas seeking evidence of fraudulent advertising from the gun manufacturer.”

    What’s the statuette of limitations on advertising claims?

    1. avatar Pb_fan59 says:

      Well, the line ” I’m from the government, I’m here to help” has been around for a little over 200 or so years, so I guess the statue of limitations on lies is a long, long time.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    I own a Smith & Wesson AR15. I’m not “trained”. And we’re “safer” in our home. Man Joyzwee sux!

  10. avatar MarkPA says:

    Advertisers are granted broad liberty to include mere “puffery” in their advertisements. Such puffery isn’t deemed to be fraudulent on its face.

    Suppose a shovel manufacturer claims its shovel is the “best” at moving dirt with the least effort. Maybe it really is the best; or, it’s no better than several of its competitors. Maybe it’s worse than several of its competitors.

    Come now a state AG suing this manufacturer for fraudulent statements because he can’t produce repeated double-blind evidence to prove his claim. That would have a chilling effect on all advertising. No one could advertise his product or service as “best”; nor even that there is “no better” competitive product. He would be on dangerous ground claiming his product as “good”. Even if he claimed only that his product were “not the worst” he could be sued.

    Would we really be better off if advertisers were so constrained that they feared anything they touted would subject them to persecution?

    Here, we are considering advertising of a product explicitly protected by a Constitutional guarantee. Shouldn’t we be allowing even more leeway here?

    What if a manufacturer of printing presses (or radio broadcasting equipment or blogging applications) claimed their products were especially effective? An administration bent on suppressing freedom of the press could vindictively go after such manufacturers. Wouldn’t this do more harm than good (in supposedly protecting newspaper publishers (etc.) from “fraudulent” claims of efficacy of advertised printing presses?

    1. avatar Prndll says:

      1) all those advertising dollars really paid off for Remington.

      2) there can be only one #1

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    I bet the NJ State Storm Troopers are tooled up to the max. Because they take orders from the State.

    NJ should be thrown out of the US for violating the constitution.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      And the states receive suggestions from the representatives of the Five Families.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    Ah, the great state of New Jersey, where New York’s garbage goes to rot.

    1. avatar edward kenway says:

      Snow has multiple uses in NJ …

      It keeps a few @$$holes off the roads and camouflages the litter at the same time, but only temporarily.

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The legal theory behind this is, “The government has the authority, power and right to look through your records, in order to learn if you have commited a legal infraction. No “cause” is needed, as the reason for being able to look through your records is to find a “cause”.

    This is a “common sense” interpretation of the 4th Amendment: government must ensure the security of your papers doesn’t hide crimes. One does not have an absolute constitutionally protected right to hide crimes from government; inquiring governments want to know. It is the only way for government to be certain your papers are, indeed, protected by the 4th Amendment. Just your say so ain’t good enuf.

  14. avatar Stephen Rajczyk says:

    I was a member of 5 different police associations in New Jersey and got to hear Mr. Grewal speak on many occasions. I invited him to my company’s annual Safety Luncheon and he often attended. He seemed like a reasonable person with reasonable positions & views. After being a part of the Murphy administration, I suspect that Mr. Grewal has higher political aspirations…. he certainly will NOT get my vote !!!

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Harry Reid was considered moderate at one time.

  15. avatar Alan says:

    The problem with New Jersey, aka The Garden State is a serious excess of “fertilizer” in all aspects of government.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      just serving the narrative…they’ll never get it…but people have voiced their opinion on this issue with all that massive gun-buying….

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email