Gun manufacturer settles lawsuit with Sandy hook familes for 73 million dollars

[Commander Wallace]

Remington has agreed to settle a lawsuit to the families of the 20 first graders and six adults killed at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newton Connecticut. POTUS Biden chimed in as well. The weapon used was an AR style Bushmaster rifle.

Quote : President Biden, in a statement on Tuesday night, praised the settlement, saying, “While this settlement does not erase the pain of that tragic day, it does begin the necessary work of holding gun manufacturers accountable for manufacturing weapons of war and irresponsibly marketing these firearms.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html

I think this settlement is wrong on so many levels. It establishes a precedent for going after gun manufactures for how their legally sold weapons are used. Remington had no control how this weapon was used and certainly would never condone it's use in this fashion.

I think car manufactures should be sued as well since there have been issues where cars have been intentionally driven into crowds of people. Cars can be weapons as well. Why not apply this stupid logic to car manufacturers

The families of the Sandy Hook massacre have said it was never about the money. Who here believes that ???? While the events at Sandy Hook are horrific and heart wrenching, Remington had nothing to do with it.


* Administrators * Feel free to move this this thread to the gun control thread or where appropriate.


Side note. The incompetent and inept reporting at CNN has said there were 5 children and 4 adults killed at Sandy Hook. Don't they ever fact check their stories ?


https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/us/sandy-hook-shooting-settlement-with-remington/index.html

[Rockstar]

I’m pro second amendment all the way. But disregarding the stupid, idiotic, irrational, pandering our politicians and media spew.

This doesn’t seem to be about constitutional rights or going after gun manufactures or owners for making or using “weapons of war”. The argument was about a state law governing trade practices. It went all the way to the Supreme Court who cleared the way for the case to go ahead. Since this case began all gun manufactures have cleaned up the way they market their product now. Manufactures still can sell their product and people can still own and use them.

It sucks but that’s the way it goes I guess. I also can’t see how it compares to cars either since all the commercials I see portray fun things to do or how to use your them for work.

[Commander Wallace]

I’m pro second amendment all the way. But disregarding the stupid, idiotic, irrational, pandering our politicians and media spew.

This doesn’t seem to be about constitutional rights or going after gun manufactures or owners for making or using “weapons of war”. The argument was about a state law governing trade practices. It went all the way to the Supreme Court who cleared the way for the case to go ahead. Since this case began all gun manufactures have cleaned up the way they market their product now. Manufactures still can sell their product and people can still own and use them.

It sucks but that’s the way it goes I guess. I also can’t see how it compares to cars either since all the commercials I see portray fun things to do or how to use your them for work.


I can see what you are saying and you are right. The lawsuit strategy clearly went about how these weapons were marketed. At the end of the day, this approach was an end around to hold Remington responsible for what was clearly beyond their control. I believe this decision to be an assault on responsible gun owners.

[Rockstar]

I can see what you are saying and you are right. The lawsuit strategy clearly went about how these weapons were marketed. At the end of the day, this approach was an end around to hold Remington responsible for what was clearly beyond their control. I believe this decision to be an assault on responsible gun owners.


They went after Remington’s marketing practices and Remington settled before it even went to court. I’m sure some will get their panties in a bunch over this. To be honest I’m a responsible gun owner and don’t feel as though I was assaulted. In fact I own a rifle that has three fire select settings stamped into the receiver: ‘peace’, ‘war’ and ‘will of god’. :har:

Remington didn’t make it either some start-up did, just got to know where to look :03:

[Commander Wallace]

They went after Remington’s marketing practices and Remington settled before it even went to court. I’m sure some will get their panties in a bunch over this. To be honest I’m a responsible gun owner and don’t feel as though I was assaulted. In fact I own a rifle that has three fire select settings stamped into the receiver: ‘peace’, ‘war’ and ‘will of god’. :har:

Remington didn’t make it either some start-up did, just got to know where to look :03:


I don't think you understand the far reaching implications of Remington folding and the anti gun crowds success in holding Remington responsible. As I mentioned, this sets a dangerous precedent in motion. Are you naive enough to believe that the anti gun crowd won't go after other gun manufactures for what they perceive as similar transgressions.. When they come for your guns or you can't buy ammunition for your weapons and they sit on your wall as decorations, you will be the one with his " panties " in a bunch as a responsible gun owner.

[em2nought]

Just another end run around the Constitution. :wah:

[Rockstar]

I don't think you understand the far reaching implications of Remington folding and the anti gun crowds success in holding Remington responsible. As I mentioned, this sets a dangerous precedent in motion. Are you naive enough to believe that the anti gun crowd won't go after other gun manufactures for what they perceive as similar transgressions.. When they come for your guns or you can't buy ammunition for your weapons and they sit on your wall as decorations, you will be the one with his " panties " in a bunch as a responsible gun owner.

I don’t believe for a moment lawyers for gun manufactures or the insurance companies have not tighten up their marketing practices and contracts so they don’t get raked over the coals again. Frankly Sandy Hook or ‘they’ isn’t what tanked Remington Arms either it was previous years of mismanagement, poor quality control an inability to meet demand and a whooping 950 million dollar pile of debt. Sandy Hook was just the last straw. And I don’t think it was Remington that paid out to the families either, it was the liability insurance companies.

Others bought the remaining pieces of Remington and I hear will continue the Remington name and even produce the their version of the ar-15.

[Commander Wallace]

I don’t believe for a moment lawyers for gun manufactures or the insurance companies have not tighten up their marketing practices and contracts so they don’t get raked over the coals again. Frankly Sandy Hook isn’t what tanked Remington Arms either it was previous years of mismanagement, poor quality control an inability to meet demand and a whooping 950 million dollar pile of debt. Sandy Hook was just the last straw. And I don’t think it was Remington that paid out to the families either, it was the liability insurance companies.

Others bought the remaining pieces of Remington and I hear will continue the Remington name and even produce the their version of the ar-15.


I had not heard of this and so, you may well be right. I will research it a bit. However, I think in the long run, this will just embolden the anti gun crowd to pursue similar actions against other gun manufacturers. As you said, other gun manufacturers would be well advised to protect themselves from similar actions. Remington did file for bankruptcy so, we will have to see if Remington can pull itself together.

[Rockstar]

Remington Outdoor Company and all its assets were sold off. Vista Outdoor, the Round Hill Group, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Sierra Bullets, Franklin Armory, Sportsman’s Warehouse, JJE Capital Holdings are the news owners.

[Dowly]

I think this settlement is wrong on so many levels. It establishes a precedent for going after gun manufactures for how their legally sold weapons are used. Remington had no control how this weapon was used and certainly would never condone it's use in this fashion.
There's no precedent to establish, it was settled out of court. Remington did not admit to any fault nor was it found to be at fault.

[Platapus]

There's no precedent to establish, it was settled out of court. Remington did not admit to any fault nor was it found to be at fault.


A very good point.

[Buddahaid]

Just another end run around the Constitution. :wah:

How do you reach that conclusion?

[em2nought]

How do you reach that conclusion?


Because you and I both know what the eventual goal is: Disarmament of the law abiding population. Chip, chip, chip away. :arrgh!:

[Buddahaid]

I say that because I don't see that the Second Amendment ensures arms are available, only that you can keep and bear them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[MaDef]

I say that because I don't see that the Second Amendment ensures arms are available, only that you can keep and bear them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you run all the gunmakers out of business, then MY RIGHT to keep and bear arms has be infringed.

[Rockstar]

I say that because I don't see that the Second Amendment ensures arms are available, only that you can keep and bear them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nor does it give the State or you the right to deny or interfere with the private means of production and ownership. Especially in a capitalist society i.e. private ownership of manufacture and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that jazz.

However in the socialist dream world the State could dictate such things.

http://site.shirtmandude.com/I-support-the-right-to-arm-bears-t-shirt-sq.jpg

[Sean C]

Precedent or not, I think this sends a terrible message: that you can succeed in holding someone accountable for something that someone else did with their product.

It's as asinine as putting a notice on a cup that reads "Coffee may be hot."

[Buddahaid]

Nor does it give the State or you the right to deny or interfere with the private means of production and ownership. Especially in a capitalist society i.e. private ownership of manufacture and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that jazz.

However in the socialist dream world the State could dictate such things.

http://site.shirtmandude.com/I-support-the-right-to-arm-bears-t-shirt-sq.jpg

I think you are wrong. We don't live in a purely capitalist society and it's a good thing we don't because pretty much everything would be a ruin otherwise. Every river and lake poisoned, every tree cut down, etc. You see those rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone dictate that a business can't destroy the means for others to enjoy those rights.

[Rockstar]

I think you are wrong. We don't live in a purely capitalist society and it's a good thing we don't because pretty much everything would be a ruin otherwise. Every river and lake poisoned, every tree cut down, etc. You see those rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone dictate that a business can't destroy the means for others to enjoy those rights.

We don’t huh? This coming from a person who has no problem using a machine which requires mined rare earth metals from unregulated third world countries by slave labor where people and environment die everyday to provide you the means to tell me this. Spare me drama, please. :roll:

[Dowly]

Precedent or not, I think this sends a terrible message: that you can succeed in holding someone accountable for something that someone else did with their product.
No one succeeded in holding anyone accountable in this case. Heck, the case wasn't even about accountability for the shooting, but for breaking some Connecticut advertisement law.

Remington didn't settle because they would've lost, they settled because the company is bankrupt and a court battle could take years. Easier to pay up so they can move on with whatever they need to do in their situation.

Absolutely nothing has changed with this. No one can hold anyone any more or less accountable than before.