Remington settlement- what’s next

Coletrain27 wrote:

When or where do you draw the line for common sense anymore?

Common sense is not common.

Youbetcha wrote:

e part that has not been brought up is didn’t he steal the gun from his mom? As he wasn’t the purchaser?

That is correct, all 4 weapons used by Lanza during his murder spree were purchased either by his mother or by another family member. I have not heard if Lanza’s mother bought the guns for her own use or whether they were bought specifically for Lanza. But of course, since his mother was also a victim, there’s no way to go down that avenue.

It’s questionable if this case actually sets a precedent for gun makers being liable. This was an out-of-court settlement, Remington admits no guilt or wrongdoing.

Also, this case was thrown out of court multiple times for lack of both standing and the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act seemingly prevents exactly this type of lawsuit, but after multiple legal moves, the Connecticut Supreme Cort allowed the case to proceed after it had been thrown out by lower courts. Through this tangle of jurisdictions, appeals, and other issues, I can see where Remington settled simply because it was cheaper than fighting.

Grouse, you know as well as I that off you look hard enough you’ll eventually find a judge that will hear a case like this.

New member here, so I apologize in advance if I fail to follow any rules.

The ruling is horrible, not just for gun manufacturers. What about murderers who use bats and knives? I guess Louisville Slugger, Easton, Buck and Ka-Bar are now liable? The argument that the main/only purpose of a firearm is to kill people is disengenuous to me, as we all know firearms are used for sport and hunting. While the anti-gun folks will argue that it’s also for killing, so are knives.

The argument can also be made with regard to cars and booze. Are car manufacturers and alcohol distilleries now liable for car accidents since drunk driving is something both manufacturers have advance knowledge that they will be used together?

It’s such a slippery slope argument. Like others have said, it’s a very sad case. They all are and I have personal experience, as my daughter was at Saugus High School in CA, in 2019 when they had their school shooting. But blaming the gun manufacturer? In many of these cases, the parent/gun owner failed to properly secure the firearms and/or failed to acknowledge that their kid had a problem. I think the gun manufacturers should counter sue these parents and every extension of that gun owner for failing to secure the guns. They are more complicit in these events than the gun manufacturers.

I suppose I could rant forever on this issue. But these are crazy times ladies and gents. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Higher cost for firearms/ammo? More regulations? Mandated liability insurance for gun owners (lame)?

So ammunition is advertised for its devastation and accuracy. So do they file against the firearm manufacturer AND the ammunition manufacturer??

Kevin Eng wrote:

What about murderers who use bats and knives? I guess Louisville Slugger, Easton, Buck and Ka-Bar are now liable?

You are completely missing the point. Read above. Remington specifically marketed their product to be used as a weapon in urban combat and as being macho. Its not their fault that a deranged individual used it in a mass murder. But it is their fault that they marketed it as such, and its something they’ve taken responsibility for because they settled in a lawsuit.

I don’t ever recall Louisville Slugger ever marketing their bats as something that worked great to bash a skull in. Or Buck Knives as a great weapon to slit someone’s throat. I can assure you that they won’t in the future either. Those products are marketed as a tool to be used in baseball or a knife that works great to skin a deer. Not scalp a person alive.

Market your product as its intended and you won’t have an issue.

Kevin Eng wrote:

The ruling is horrible, not just for gun manufacturers.

To be clear, this was not “a ruling”. It’s a voluntary settlement between Remington and the plaintiffs. As such, Remington does not admit liability or wrongdoing, they only admit that they want the case to end.

So this case doesn’t set any legal precedents for how future cases of product liability (for any product) can be decided.

More concerning to me is the fact that in this case the Plaintiffs somehow got around the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This Act was supposed to provide nationwide liability protection against suits such as this one. I haven’t read that ruling to see the reasoning why that Act did NOT apply in this case, but at a guess, I’d say it was the Plaintiff going after the advertising and marketing of the firearms, NOT the firearms themselves.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

I’d say it was the Plaintiff going after the advertising and marketing of the firearms, NOT the firearms themselves.

Thank you! That’s what I’m trying to say here.

Randy Wieland wrote:

So ammunition is advertised for its deviation and accuracy. So do they file against the firearm manufacturer AND the ammunition manufacturer??

Anything is possible in sue-happy America. Remember Mcdonald’s and the infamous hot coffee lawsuits.

However. If you apply the plaintiff’s line of reasoning in the Remington case, they would have to find advertising from the ammunition company along the same lines as Remington’s “get a big gun, be a big man” ads that were at issue in this case.

Not to say such ads don’t exist, but that’s the parallel a plaintiff would have to draw. And I’d think right now everybody in the firearms industry is reworking all advertising and marketing to get away from the “use our [whatever], be a bigger man” advertising that was attacked in this case.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Coletrain27 wrote:</div>
So I guess I could sue silverware manufactures for making me fat, breweries for dui’s and divorces and vehicle manufactures for speeding tickets. What a complete joke

You’ve missed the point of the lawsuit here.

Its the specific marketing ploy that they were held responsible for. Not those random daily outcomes you are listing above.

I’m not saying I agree with it. In fact, I don’t. I’m just telling you how it went down.

I haven’t seen the ad in question… does it elude to a young man needs one to shoot up people ? Alcohol manufacturers target a specific crowd.. young hipsters or sportsman for certain beers… what’s the difference when someone goes out and kills someone driving drunk.. blame the beer ?

big_g wrote:

I haven’t seen the ad in question

You’ll really have to dig for it. It’s years old now.

If an alcohol or beer company advertised their product as something that can be used to drive drunk and then it happens and they kill someone, yes, they will be held liable. Beer and alcohol companies are smarter than that though.

cbeeksma wrote:

Famous Grouse, those are exactly my thoughts. They keep saying they are going to fund Mental illness research and treatment and it is always inadequate.

Who are “they”? The politicians you vote for, the ones I vote for, or all of them?