Remington and Sandy Hook

[track65]

This will open a whole new can of worms for gun makers. Every company will be facing similar law suits

 

[free]

F Remington, F the lawyers and especially F the judge that didn't toss this shit out long ago. Glad I don't own anything from Remington (had an 870 years back, sold it not long after getting it). Now I never will own anything with their name on it.

WE all know this just opens up the doors to more BS law suits. We also know it's all part of the plan to disarm the American people to allow the gov to do whatever they want without any chance of US doing something about it.

I like the 870 and the ammunitions. Plus, green is my favorite color.

 

[enbloc]

Maura is salivating.

 

[Hoover]

This will open a whole new can of worms for gun makers. Every company will be facing similar law suits

It was in Connecticut state court based on a marketing law in Connecticut. The insurance companies are paying the settlement, we won’t see others like this.

 

[SpaceCritter]

It was in Connecticut state court based on a marketing law in Connecticut. The insurance companies are paying the settlement, we won’t see others like this.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

Everyone killed by a drunk diver will have the families suing the auto-maker for aggressively marketing them. So now any legal product can't be aggressively marketed. The wackiness just keeps getting worse.

This was in Connecticut state court. The lower court threw it out, the CT Supreme Court by a 4-3 decision allowed it.

It’s a garbage case and should have been tossed by the CT Supreme Court. The suit wasn’t a 2A suit, it was based on a particular law in CT regarding marketing of products. As bad as this is, it’s not going to be replicated in most other states because their courts aren’t asses and their states don’t have these BS marketing laws

Well, then, let's hope that families in CT start suing the automakers, and use this as a precedent. Then when the dumbasses whine, we'll just laugh and say "You get what you deserve." Liberal cucks.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Well, then, let's hope that families in CT start suing the automakers, and use this as a precedent. Then when the dumbasses whine, we'll just laugh and say "You get what you deserve." Liberal cucks.

Can't use a settlement as if it were legal precedent.

Not that this will stop families and ambulance chasers from trying to cash in.

 

[ridleyman]

As horrible as the Sandy Hook massacre was, Remington shouldn't pay a dime. Did they have an ad campaign where their focus group was made up of psychopaths? But btw, I have sooooooooooo little faith in Remington as a gun company these days. I have owned several Rems over the years, and they were all great until about sometime in the 2000s, when they became a gamble. A lot of the stuff I bought then was shet. Those pig fuquer, corporate traitors need to do justice to Eliphalet Remington for a change. I won't touch Rem now.

 

[Drix]

But btw, I have sooooooooooo little faith in Remington as a gun company these days

Why? They're bankrupt, kaput, finito. The factory has been closed for almost a year, when production starts back up all that will be left is the name that was sold to the highest bidder.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Can't use a settlement as if it were legal precedent.

Not that this will stop families and ambulance chasers from trying to cash in.

No worries, they will.

 

[lowbuckbob]

This opens up a huge can of worms.

 

[Eddie_Valiant]

This was in Connecticut state court. The lower court threw it out, the CT Supreme Court by a 4-3 decision allowed it.

It’s a garbage case and should have been tossed by the CT Supreme Court. The suit wasn’t a 2A suit, it was based on a particular law in CT regarding marketing of products. As bad as this is, it’s not going to be replicated in most other states because their courts aren’t asses and their states don’t have these BS marketing laws

I sure hope you're right. The shooter, Adam Lanza, had a serious mental illness. His mother tried for years to mainstream him and it was her that taught Adam how to shoot. She often took him to a range. As a teen, he played first person shooter games endlessly. That may not have caused him to do what he did, but it sure didn't help.

The responsible party was his mother, Nancy Lanza. Problem is she was the first to die.

 

[Reptile]

Maura is salivating.

If she rolled around in cocaine right now, it would stick someplace special...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPxwXKPb0b8&t=5s

 

[groundscrapers]

This is getting circulated amongst the gun community and its demonstrating how little they know about how these things work. Remington went bankrupt, assets are all sold off and there is nothing to get out of them that hasn't been carved out already. Remington when it was open carried insurance for these kinds of events. The amount paid out was from their insurer just cutting their losses and getting out of the case without spending any more money than they have already. The insurance company could likely care less about gun politics and is treating this as a pure financial move.

 

[Picton]

This is getting circulated amongst the gun community and its demonstrating how little they know about how these things work. Remington went bankrupt, assets are all sold off and there is nothing to get out of them that hasn't been carved out already. Remington when it was open carried insurance for these kinds of events. The amount paid out was from their insurer just cutting their losses and getting out of the case without spending any more money than they have already. The insurance company could likely care less about gun politics and is treating this as a pure financial move.

This.

I was thinking this wasn't Big Green's call, but that even if it was? I doubt their pockets were deep enough for this fight.

 

[groundscrapers]

This.

I was thinking this wasn't Big Green's call, but that even if it was? I doubt their pockets were deep enough for this fight.

If big green had millions they would have still been in business. I know the new owners and they didn't have anything to do with this.

 

[Yazz]

This is getting circulated amongst the gun community and its demonstrating how little they know about how these things work. Remington went bankrupt, assets are all sold off and there is nothing to get out of them that hasn't been carved out already. Remington when it was open carried insurance for these kinds of events. The amount paid out was from their insurer just cutting their losses and getting out of the case without spending any more money than they have already. The insurance company could likely care less about gun politics and is treating this as a pure financial move.

They have a better chance at getting Hillary's virginity!

 

[Kevin_NH]

This is getting circulated amongst the gun community and its demonstrating how little they know about how these things work. Remington went bankrupt, assets are all sold off and there is nothing to get out of them that hasn't been carved out already. Remington when it was open carried insurance for these kinds of events. The amount paid out was from their insurer just cutting their losses and getting out of the case without spending any more money than they have already. The insurance company could likely care less about gun politics and is treating this as a pure financial move.

I think the insurance companies actual did care about gun politics in a roundabout way.

The $73MM settlement equals the cap on the insurance policies, if they had taken it to court and lost, the insurer's liability would have been the same amount, so fighting it would have only cost them goodwill and the (presumably in-house, salaried) lawyers effort.

I suspect the insurers settled specifically to avoid losing a case in court -- that actually does establish "legal precedent", potentially resulting in them paying out on other policies they likely hold, and precedent would all but guarantee nuisance plaintiffs coming out of the woodwork to cash in.

 

[TOM1960]

That is why Israeli authorities will never negotiate with hijackers or other terrorists who hide behind hostages. You pay one off, others will get encouraged and do the same. There will be more lawsuits with the explicit goal of bankrupting gun manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. Those who market accessories, such as spare mags, shotgun extension tubes, etc will also feel the heat. The only way to end this bullshit once and for all is to outlaw contingency-fee lawsuits, the same way as Europe did.

It was in Connecticut state court based on a marketing law in Connecticut. The insurance companies are paying the settlement, we won’t see others like this.

 

[Chappy7]

Keep in mind the case law is substantially different than legislative law. Meaning case law is fluid and can change based in court ruling which can vary. Legislative law is based on wording. Both can vary based on interpretation and argument in a court of law. IANAL

 

[groundscrapers]

I think the insurance companies actual did care about gun politics in a roundabout way.

The $73MM settlement equals the cap on the insurance policies, if they had taken it to court and lost, the insurer's liability would have been the same amount, so fighting it would have only cost them goodwill and the (presumably in-house, salaried) lawyers effort.

I suspect the insurers settled specifically to avoid losing a case in court -- that actually does establish "legal precedent", potentially resulting in them paying out on other policies they likely hold, and precedent would all but guarantee nuisance plaintiffs coming out of the woodwork to cash in.

but were still talking about their bottom line and any gun politics is an ancillary feature.

 

[Hoover]

I sure hope you're right. The shooter, Adam Lanza, had a serious mental illness. His mother tried for years to mainstream him and it was her that taught Adam how to shoot. She often took him to a range. As a teen, he played first person shooter games endlessly. That may not have caused him to do what he did, but it sure didn't help.

The responsible party was his mother, Nancy Lanza. Problem is she was the first to die.

I remember that. He was a disturbed kid and she absolutely should never have put him near firearms. The insane thing with the lawsuit, even if Remington was marketing guns in the way the scumbag lawyers claim, it’s irrelevant because the shooter was never the buyer of the rifle and additionally there no evidence Lanza ever saw the advertisements.

Should have been laughed out of court the first day.

 

[ridleyman]

Why? They're bankrupt, kaput, finito. The factory has been closed for almost a year, when production starts back up all that will be left is the name that was sold to the highest bidder.

I think I read that they have already started up production of ammo, but I don't know about firearms.

 

[TLB]

The legal merits don't matter. Look how the MSM is using this story in their propaganda.

 

[Kevin_NH]

I remember that. He was a disturbed kid and she absolutely should never have put him near firearms. The insane thing with the lawsuit, even if Remington was marketing guns in the way the scumbag lawyers claim, it’s irrelevant because the shooter was never the buyer of the rifle and additionally there no evidence Lanza ever saw the advertisements.

Should have been laughed out of court the first day.

Might've been in a normal state, but it was being tried in Connecticut and SCOTUS refused to consider the PLCAA argument.

 

[Hoover]

Might've been in a normal state, but it was being tried in Connecticut and SCOTUS refused to consider the PLCAA argument.

SCOTUS declining a case could be for a bunch of reasons. A lot of times SCOTUS let’s lower court filter cases out before they hear something. SCOTUS only hears 80 ish cases a year so it’s more likely than not for SCOTUS to not hear a case a very common when the case hasn’t been heard in a lower court

 

[rscalzo]

Update:

Sandy Hook families settle for $73M with gun maker Remington

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have agreed to a $73 million settlement of a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 20 …

www.wtnh.com

Didn't cost them anything. That company is gone.

Four insurers for the now-bankrupt company agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, totaling $73 million, the plaintiffs said..

Will GM be sued by the passenger and victim in this crash?

NFL player Henry Ruggs driving 156 mph seconds before fatal crash, police say.​

NFL player Henry Ruggs driving 156 mph seconds before fatal crash, police say

 

[Amputee Marksman]

​

​ ​ FEATURE​ Sandy Hook Settlement ​ ​

​

​ ​ ​ Many of us were stunned when news broke yesterday that Remington Arms had settled the 2015 lawsuit brought against them by the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Last July, two of Remington’s four insurance companies offered a $33 million settlement to the families of the 20 students and six staffers killed by Adam Lanza. Two of the companies held out. That settlement offer was rejected. This time, however, attorneys for the families say all four insurance companies will participate. They’ll also be paying significantly more; this settlement amount is $73 million dollars. The suit argued that Remington negligently sold civilians a rifle (a Bushmaster AR-15) “substantially similar” to the M16 service rifle used by many armed forces worldwide. The suit also argued that the company’s advertising and placement in violent video games essentially “glorified” violence using the rifle. Assertions the families said put Remington in violation of the state’s consumer protection law which prohibits advertising and marketing that is “immoral and unscrupulous." In rebuttal, Remington argued there was no evidence to establish that marketing had anything to do with the shooting. The company also argued that the legal theories behind the suit were flawed- barred by both Connecticut statutes and the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. The PLCA protects manufacturers, distributors and dealers from potential liability, provided the gun in question was functioning correctly and sold according to all federal, state and local regulations. While the action of the mentally disturbed shooter was heinous, Remington essentially argued there was doubt that the rifle performed exactly as designed. The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, disagreed, ruling that the company could be sued under state law over how their AR-rifles were marketed. Remington appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court declined to hear the case. A simple question has been bouncing around the industry today: so what does this really mean to the gun industry? At this point, most industry leaders are mum regarding any “forward-lookinesult of the decision. But the off-the-record responses have ranged from “too-early to tell” to “it’s the damn insurance companies’ money. Brutal precedent.” Another reminded me that the “tactical bro” ads have already shown significant reductions, with hunting and home defense messages taking center stage in a majority of today’s advertising. That, I’m told, is a result of companies having already “factored” the potential liability should the Soto v. Remington case go sideways. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, however, released the only comprehensive statement as of our deadlines last evening. Here it is in its entirety: “The decision to settle in the Soto v. Bushmaster case was not made by a member of the firearms industry. The settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the various insurance carriers that held policies with Remington Outdoor Company (ROC), which effectively no longer exists. As part of bankruptcy court proceedings, the assets of ROC were sold at auction in September of 2020. Remington Outdoor Company, which owned the Bushmaster brand, effectively ceased to exist as a going concern. The lawsuit, however, continued against the estate of the Remington Outdoor Company, essentially ROC’s insurers and their insurance policies in effect at the time. The settlement also does not alter the fundamental facts of the case. The plaintiffs never produced any evidence that Bushmaster advertising had any bearing or influence over Nancy Lanza’s decision to legally purchase a Bushmaster rifle, nor on the decision of murderer Adam Lanza to steal that rifle, kill his mother in her sleep, and go on to commit the rest of his horrendous crimes. We renew our sincere sympathy for the victims of this unspeakable tragedy and all victims of violence committed through the misusing of any firearm. But the fact remains that modern sporting rifles are the most popular rifle in America with over 20 million sold to law abiding Americans and rifles, of any kind, are exceedingly rarely used in crime. The Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in its Soto v. Bushmaster (4-3) opinion, “[T]the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ wrongful advertising magnified the lethality of the Sandy Hook massacre by inspiring Lanza or causing him to select a more efficiently deadly weapon for his attack. Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task.” NSSF believes the Court incorrectly allowed this one claim to go forward to discover. We remain confident ROC would have prevailed if this case had it proceeded to trial. Finally, this settlement orchestrated by insurance companies has no impact on the strength and efficacy of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which remains the law of the land. PLCAA will continue to block baseless lawsuits that attempt to blame lawful industry companies for the criminal acts of third parties. And as always, we’ll keep you posted. — Jim Shepherd​

 

[In God We Trust]

Why? They're bankrupt, kaput, finito. The factory has been closed for almost a year, when production starts back up all that will be left is the name that was sold to the highest bidder.

Anyone would be a fool to buy a gun factory in this current climate. If all it take is one looney going on a rampage to close you down, it’s just a matter of time.

Maybe if they did like TV commercials and stamped “don’t not go on mass shooting sprees.” On each gun?

 

[HARRYM]

Anyone would be a fool to buy a gun factory in this current climate. If all it take is one looney going on a rampage to close you down, it’s just a matter of time.

Maybe if they did like TV commercials and stamped “don’t not go on mass shooting sprees.” On each gun?

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Perhaps this is the intended result all along.