Remington Arms Settles with Sandy Hook Victims
- Thread starter LWC55
- Start date
Nick87
Well-known member
that AR literally has the word "assault" right in it.
Sharp.
Sharp.
Yup, that was dumb. I'll admit it. Should have done my homework first.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Stop apologizing, that's what half the citizenry and the majority of 'news' sources call them...and thinks it acronyms.
Half the citezenry is also in the lower 50th percentile along with 90% of the news
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Probably the worst take I have seen on a very interesting case. It pretty much says "move along, nothing to see here." The case itself, along with others were contributing factors to the bankruptcy to begin with. So to just say "It was the insurers fault" is glossing over the historic path and previous decisions of the case. I guess I didn't expect a full-blown legal analysis from the source, but it would be more beneficial to face the facts for future arguments.Interesting statement released by NSSF…
NSSF Releases Statement on Sandy Hook Settlement | Gun Talk
Yesterday it was announced that the insurance companies representing the former Remington Outdoor Company* had settled the lawsuit brought against it by...www.guntalk.com
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Everyone polishes the same turd...just opposite ends. Choose your poison, the pig's nose is under the wire.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Absolutely. But we should call out when the polishing is a material misrepresentation of fact and conclusions may divert attention from a reasonable discussion on how to make things better.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
No moreso than the rhetorical misrepresentation that the settlement doesn't advance anti firearm momentum and deep cut litigation.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The settlement might have a minor impact. Only time will tell. The "deeper cut" was probably when the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal for protection under PLCAA. If a conservatively-tilted SCOTUS didn't want to take it up, then statements like this are questionable at best.
"...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."
That decision was years ago, so to argue that a new "flood" of lawsuits is coming is itself pure rhetoric. Like I said. It was an interesting case. The only thing clear on this thread is 90% of the people would have been tossed from the jury pool for knowing what the result would be before ever seeing or hearing evidence.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Actually, I think it is the proper read of the situation and is closer to the "facts" than a supposed big game-changing win for anti-gun folks. One pre-trial case cannot put a major corporation into bankruptcy - especially when advertising claims are typically defended by the insurers and cost companies nothing more than a deductible (probably in the $5-10million range I would guess). Bankruptcy trustees and insurers of bankrupt corpus always try to settle out, as it is very hard to fight when the company and people are gone. A more accurate view is that plaintiff lawyers with a small chance of success (as pointed out by the state Supreme Court) got a public relations win by settling with disinterested trustee and insurers with hopes that mass audiences will misinterpret this as a substantive win that they can spin in all the new cases they plan on bringing.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
As an aside, while being a "pro2A guy", I am completely tired of all the bullsh*t Rambo advertising cr*p and the dancing with the NFA around "quasi-automatic fire" alterations and DIY "solvent catchers". This line of thinking does not help public land hunters or better defend the 2A in the longer run. Buying all the tacti-cool stuff does not make a person a special forces operator saving American democracy any more than getting implants makes a person Margot Robbie.
I'm sure opponents of the 2A will be much more open minded to the "facts".
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Agreed on your analysis of how the result should be viewed. But let's not pretend companies don't run to bankruptcy protection when the threat of litigation with potentially large claims is looming. Just saying it was in the calculation is all.
We will have to disagree on that write up. It left out a lot and made a lot of misstatements.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Well-run companies rarely are pushed to bankruptcy by tort litigation. There are some notable ones, but an exception more than the rule, and even then only after repeated big damage losses. But as we know, Rem was not a well-run company - I would guess we could all agree with that.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
They would have been tossed too. Arguing that your dogmatic view is justified by your opponents dogmatic view is why we are in a position where no one can agree on anything.
I think it was its second bankruptcy in like 8 years, so no argument from me.
VikingsGuy said:
This doesn't open up anything. No jury finding, no new arguments (these claims have been made before), no new law - just a cash settlement with an odd collection of remaining settlees.
Last I heard, juries are selected from the public
This doesn't open up anything. No jury finding, no new arguments (these claims have been made before), no new law - just a cash settlement with an odd collection of remaining settlees.
So, we can agree that it does open things up by changing the precedent to the general public?
Last I heard, juries are selected from the public
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
If you are going to highlight text at least get the whole sentence. I said that was the plaintiff lawyers hope - time will tell if it works. In my experience, it depends a lot more about court location that drives jury pool than newsworthy tidbits unless there is a big avalanche of bad news.
I'm not a fan of those guys and gals who gear up in tacti-cool garb... and I may have a chuckle over such though - if it's legal... it's... legal. I don't have a problem with that any more so than laughing at a Senator introduce a bill to ban women wearing yoga pants. I've seen some interesting figures stretch the frightening side of yoga - Walmart style... Though if the woman (or guy) wants to wear the crap and it's isn't pleasing to my eye... Meh. It's America.
Subjectively, our society is full of judgmental posturing over what others do, wear, etc that have no effect on us. It becomes rationalized impressions such as, "puts a bad light on pro 2A..." The CNN /MSNBC Don Lemon douches will not feel a tiny speed bump in their anti 2A rhetoric... In my opinion, Tacti-cool up all you want. It has the same Bill Maher reaction to an evil, murdering, black M4...
Picatinny rails... short / flip swap long range scope mount. vertical grip, etc. On and on...
Meh, regardless - Anti 2A nutters desire an Australian, UK, Singapore lifestyle. Opinions abound...
I'm not trying to argue or be a jerk. I just think there's a world of difference between this settlement being meaningless or not. It could be a complete disaster. Time will tell
