> Seems like purely a stunt. What plausible legal violation could there have been?
The kind of referral from the Governor's office is not a criminal referral but more of a policy referral; while there are some kinds of legal liability that might be involved, that's not really even superficially the point of the referral and the legal authority under which it was made: understanding issues contributing to a public safety problem is.
The AG is, yes, the top prosecutorial authority of the state, but that isn't the whole of their role.
> If you want to and a company indirectly involved wouldn’t the gun manufacturer be more liable?
Probably not; there is probably far less evidence that the gun manufacturer knew, or should reasonably have known, about the specific act it was contributing to.
Sure, fair enough. I'm extremely skeptical of a legislative solution here too.
> Probably not; there is probably far less evidence that the gun manufacturer knew...
What acts do you think civilians use an AR-15 style rifle for? What percentage of AR-15 holders shoot a person versus the percentage of social media users?
The kind of referral from the Governor's office is not a criminal referral but more of a policy referral; while there are some kinds of legal liability that might be involved, that's not really even superficially the point of the referral and the legal authority under which it was made: understanding issues contributing to a public safety problem is.
The AG is, yes, the top prosecutorial authority of the state, but that isn't the whole of their role.
> If you want to and a company indirectly involved wouldn’t the gun manufacturer be more liable?
Probably not; there is probably far less evidence that the gun manufacturer knew, or should reasonably have known, about the specific act it was contributing to.