Remington ‘Courted’ Adam Lanza For Years Before Newtown – Quote of the Day

Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing relatives of victims in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School

“Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they have been courting him for years. The courtship between Remington and Adam Lanza is at the heart of the case.” – Attorney Joshua D. Koskoff in Connecticut Supreme Court Hears Newtown Families’ Appeal Against Gun Companies [via nytimes.com]

comments

  1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    ???

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    If it weren’t such a serious matter, watching their attempt to argue negligent entrustment in this case would be utterly hilarious.

    Remington is at least two (FFL, Lanza’s mother), if not three (distributor, FFL, Lanza’s mother), degrees separated from Adam Lanza. Thus, the argument fails on the first element of the claim. Remington never sold, transferred, or in any other way entrusted a firearm to Adam Lanza.

    I don’t know how state supreme courts work, but if this case isn’t dismissed outright upon oral arguments, I hope it gets appealed directly to SCOTUS immediately. The case should not even be heard, under PLCAA.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      The frightening thing is, Chip, when they inevitably regain control of SCOTUS, they will be *happy* to consider that a valid excuse to hold Remington liable. And bankrupt them.

      They are in this battle to the *death*.

      The evisceration and death of the United States of America…

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        By then, we will be able to 3D print our guns.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          When that capability is in the hands of average people, and the Dems regain the reigns of government in the natural eb and flow of political tides, then we’ll be like Australia where it’s a felony to posses manufacturing knowledge. Gotta love the thought police.

    2. avatar Stereodude says:

      FWIW, they named the wholesaler and local dealer in the case too. Not just Remington.

      However, it’s still completely preposterous. Certainly Remington and the wholesaler had no idea the weapon would potentially end up in the hands of Adam Lanza. The local dealer might have. However, unless Adam Lanza was with his mom when she shopped for and ultimately bought the Bushmaster rifle, he was visibly displaying signs that he was an unstable & dangerous person (like Nolan Finley), and it was clear the weapon was really for Adam to use the case is complete garbage.

      At most the local dealer could have liability (which they would have to prove), but anyone further up the chain, no way.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        The local dealer might have. However, unless Adam Lanza was with his mom when she shopped for and ultimately bought the Bushmaster rifle, was visibly displaying signs that he was an unstable & dangerous person (like Nolan Finley), and it was clear the weapon was really for Adam to use the case is complete garbage.

        And if that were the case, such a sale would have constituted an unlawful, straw purchase by Lanza’s mother, which would be prima facie an unlawful sale by the FFL, and would subject the FFL to sanction/prosecution by ATF.

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          Are you sure that would constitute a straw purchase? AFAIK, you can buy a firearm with the intent of giving it to someone. Further, parents buy firearms for their children to use all the time. Buying a firearm (knowingly?) for someone who is a prohibited person is a straw purchase. Was Lanza a prohibited person at the time the Bushmaster was purchased?

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Was Lanza a prohibited person at the time the Bushmaster was purchased?

          IIRC, yes: primarily because he was underage.

          Aside from that, Lanza was a mental case, but his condition was rationalized away and placated by his mother, and largely ignored by the medical community.

          The complainants in this case would have to prove a) that the FFL knew that Lanza’s mother was purchasing a firearm for the purpose of giving it to her son, AND b) that the FFL knew of Lanza’s mental condition.

          The first is easily disproved, given that the rifle was kept locked in a cabinet, and Lanza had to resort to murdering his mother in order to get the key. The second would be nearly impossible to prove, even by a preponderance of the evidence.

          If somehow it could be proved that the FFL sold the rifle to Lanza’s mother knowing that she intended to give it to her underage son, then ATF might have a case. But even that, without any evidence that the FFL knew that Lanza had ill intent with the firearm, I don’t see how it supports a negligent entrustment allegation.

          Of course, IANAL.

        3. avatar that one guy says:

          I think the cop discount case highlighted the difference:

          if she used her money to buy him a gun, it is a gift, and totally legal.
          if she used HIS money to buy him a gun, it is a straw purchase, and illegal.

          his ‘prohibited’ status is not part of the straw equation

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          his ‘prohibited’ status is not part of the straw equation

          Except, the “prohibited” status is the exact purpose of straw purchase statutes. Whose money is used is irrelevant. If the firearm is purchased by Person A, with the intent to transfer the firearm to Person B, AND is done so because Person A knows that Person B would fail a background check, that is a straw purchase.

          Now, I suppose you could split hairs over the origin of the money. But even if Person A uses his own money, and then “gifts” the firearm to Person B, that’s still an unlawful transfer, because Person A does so knowing that Person B is a prohibited person.

        5. avatar Big Bill says:

          It is my understanding that investigators concluded that Lanza killed his mom, and stole her gun.
          That pretty much rules out any straw purchase.
          This case is an uphill battle, but history shows us that they have been won, too. I doubt this one will be won, though. The facts do not (at least as I see them) support the case.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It is my understanding that investigators concluded that Lanza killed his mom, and stole her gun.
          That pretty much rules out any straw purchase.

          Yes, exactly.

          There is literally nothing here with which to support an allegation of negligent entrustment.

        7. avatar Stereodude says:

          > “IIRC, yes: primarily because he was underage.”

          @Chip IANAL either, but your interpretation would mean that any parent who buys a firearm for their underage child (< 18 for long gun / < 21 for handgun) is a straw purchaser. I don't think that's the case.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Chip IANAL either, but your interpretation would mean that any parent who buys a firearm for their underage child (< 18 for long gun / < 21 for handgun) is a straw purchaser. I don't think that's the case.

          I think that interpretation is a bit too strict. Intent matters.

          For example, I bought a Savage Rascal for my daughters, but I maintain possession of it, and they only shoot it under my supervision.

          Also, I did not purchase it because they were unable to do so, as a means of circumventing such a purchase.

          In Indiana, it is perfectly lawful for someone 18 years old to possess a handgun, even though federal law prohibits someone under 21 from purchasing a handgun. It is perfectly lawful to transfer a handgun to someone under 21. Thus, it is perfectly lawful for someone to purchase a handgun with the intent of gifting it to someone under 21.

          But let’s say that’s not the case in CT. I would contend that a parent purchasing a handgun for the expressed intent of gifting it to their under-21 child would constitute both a straw purchase, and, upon gifting the handgun to the under-21 child, an unlawful transfer.

          But none of that applies in this case, because Lanza’s mother had no intent of transferring the rifle to Lanza.

          The only party who could even plausibly be guilty of negligent entrustment in this instance cannot be sued, because she was killed by Lanza in order for him to obtain the firearm. That murder absolves even her of such a charge, because it demonstrates that she never intended for Lanza to possess the firearm.

      2. avatar GunDoc says:

        Pretty sure “zombie” is a prohibited person.

        Lanza was dead the day before the Newtown drill. Him and his mother are the only ones that provably died.

        But don’t let facts interfere with the narrative.

        1. avatar Jhon says:

          Reynolds Wrap. It’s not just for cooking anymore.

        2. avatar Aaron says:

          Really. OK, I’ll bite: what “facts”?

        3. avatar Jhon says:

          Don’t do it Aaron. There’s a whole lot of crazy in the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists. Alex Jones must get a kickback every time its mentioned by an internet moonbat.

        4. avatar GunDoc says:

          Aaron,

          Since you asked nicely, here ya go:

          Fact: Autopsies are NEVER. EVER. EVER performed outside of the ME facility. I am a medical doctor. I am not pulling this out of my rectum.

          Fact: No crime scene photos showing evidence of a shooting have been released. You know, evidence of a crime of MURDER.

          Fact: The photos that were released showed…nothing. A sterile “classroom” with no desks, no bloodstains. No nothing. Having been to more than my share of crime scenes (there’s that pesky SME/personal experience thing coming in), I can tell you that when even one or two people are killed violently, it is horrendously messy.

          Fact: Despite the fact that it was a mere week and a half to Christmas, there were NO CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS in the school. I don’t know how many of you have ever been to an elementary between November 30th and December 21st, but the halls are OVERFLOWING with arts and crafts Christmas handiwork. And usually a decorated tree. And window sticker snowflakes. Whoops.

          Fact: And this one is the kind to put you backflipping retards (looking at YOU Jhon) in their rightful place in the STFU chair- Sandy Hook was CLOSED due to major health code issues in 2008. Both black mold AND asbestos. It was a depot for the district to store surplus materials. The public records are still available, if you do a little digging.

          Fact: There was no online presence of Sandy Hook (meaning NO INTERNET WHATSOEVER) for the period 2008-2013. The Internet Wayback machine crawls the entire web, and cannot be bought off, cajoled, or threatened. So unless you can explain why an elementary school in a fairly upscale area was without internet for four years, this puts it to bed.

          Fact: There’s evidence that many (if not most/all) of the residents of Sandy Hook “miraculously” had their mortgages paid in December of 2009. I don’t know about you, but Magical Mortgage fairies are rather rare. As in, they don’t exist.

          But again, it’s a case where the sheep (again, looking at YOU Jhon, but it applies to anyone lapping up the pablum) would rather not have to strain their precious brains by using critical thinking skills. They would rather hurl ad-hominems at their intellectual betters, such as “Truther” (such a vile insult, to be called one who seeks truth).

          These facts are just a few of the anomalies surrounding this delightful Production.

          But again, reality would likely cause most people’s brains (such as they are) to fuse. In my 61 years, I realize that people DON’T want the truth (in fact, they go to great lengths to insulate themselves from it). They simply want reassurance that what they believe is the truth.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I do not know what happened at Newtown; wasn’t there. However, the items you state are fact were/are available to you (though I would prefer scanned docs, or internet links). It is always possible that “conspiracy people” cherry-pick anomalies as definitive, indisputable fact, and the only facts that matter.

          One thing that bothers me about “proof” that Newtown did not occur is that an entire town was bought-off, somehow. How does that happen? If the children who were reported killed did not exist, wouldn’t that be verifiable immediately? If the children who were reported killed did exist, but were sequestered, is there any proof that the children are no longer in Newtown? Would not neighbors know whether the children were present after the shooting? Is there evidence that every funeral home in town refuses to answer questions about who they buried? Given all the shock tabloids available at the grocery store, wouldn’t one of them been interested in “conspiracy” reporting? Would it not be easy to find and interview all the teachers at Newtown/SandyHook who were not killed? Would it not be easy to discover if they were absent that day, if they were actually at other schools, that they were ever on the payroll? Why have there been on freedom of information demands for all the records? The entire nation, and every news outlet is bought-off/intimidated?

          Believe me, I would love to have definitive proof that 26 children are not dead, that the incident never happened.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Here is how I would argue the point:

        Remington is a manufacturer operating in the present society of the US. Remington executives knew that there were people in the society who had severe mental problems. No one can escape the knowledge because it is described in popular publications, illuminated by countless movies, videos and television programs. Remington could not be unaware that people with sever mental problems could, legally or illegally obtain the firearms produced by Remington. Because it is the normal condition of the business Remington engages in that people with severe mental problems often successfully pass NICS and state background checks, Remington knew, or should have known from publicly available information sources that unstable people can obtain firearms. Remington could not be unaware that people with severe mental problems have used Remington firearms to commit crimes, including murder. Remington knew, without doubt, that the items they manufacture can and will be in the hands of numerous yet to be identified mentally disturbed persons, yet Remington refused to take extraordinary measures to either introduce greater controls on the distribution and sale of their firearms, or refused to take seriously their civic duty to not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell their deadly product into a society Remington fully knew and understood would include persons more likely that others to use those products to harm or kill other persons. Remington’s actions are not protected by PLCAA, as the actions constitute gross negligence and depraved indifference to provably logical, harmful and deadly outcomes.

        1. avatar JDG says:

          In that case ,EVERY auto manufacturer is liable for ANY death by their vehicles.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In that case ,EVERY auto manufacturer is liable for ANY death by their vehicles.”

          Who cares?

          As a lawyer, I am arguing my client’s case. The impact of one case on related circumstances is not a matter of law for consideration at trial. “Depraved indifference, or gross negligence” can be applied to any number of circumstances, one not dependent on the outcome of another. Supreme Court decisions, more than once, ruled that government can force a person to engage in commerce. The implications for different marketplaces were not considered germane to those SC decisions.

          No belief or declaration by citizens that “the law” must be consistent, logical, fair, just, constrained by considerations for application of said law in separate but similar cases has any “standing”, any application as to how the law is promulgated. It is even possible that acting within one law requires the violation of another.

          To quote…”The law is a ass”.

        3. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Who cares?

          As a lawyer you should understand the doctrine of precedent, and if the court is sufficiently highly ranked the decision will be binding on courts equal and lesser in the hierarchy, and influential on higher courts. (Note this is for UK and Commonwealth courts, YMMV in the US).

          With the PLCAA gone for gun makers, the rule will be also applied to other makers of products which can cause harm in the community, which will include car makers, alcoholic drink makers and suppliers, tobacco companies (who have resisted having their product classified as a food or a drug to avoid regulation), and other products as well.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I do understand precedent. It is often overturned.

          As a lawyer, I would not be concerned that if my client’s case overturned a precedent, and that overturned precedent cause other precedents to be overturned, or the overturned precedent served to encourage other attorneys to attempt to overturn precedent in their cases. A plaintiffs lawyer’s only concern is vigorous representation of the client (by “vigorous” I do not endorse “illegal”). Politicians, law school professors and judges (active and retired) may be concerned with complications of precedent, but my interest is seeing to it the client is properly served.

          As an absolutist about gun ownership and possession, I am an absolutist about the law. I am not required to like the law, or personally support or endorse the law. If vigorous representation of a client results in dismantling a precedent, and that dismantling upends “the law” going forward (new interpretation), that is the outcome. Not being perfect, I could be required to severely debate myself when one client would benefit by maintaining precedent, but another would benefit by overturning that same precedent. Not being perfect, I fear I would not always make the cosmically “correct” decision on how to proceed.

          Would you want an attorney who would throw in the towel simply because precedent against the client existed?

        5. avatar GunDoc says:

          Sam, thanks for the civil response. Refreshing.

          And, thanks to the incredibly inane comment functionality, I am responding here instead of immediately below your reply.

          To succinctly answer your queries: there have been NUMEROUS FOIA requests, the most notable one put forth requesting maintenance tickets generated at the school for the years 2008-2012. They were resoundingly DENIED.

          All inquiry into the things you mentioned above have been stonewalled, with those doing the inquiries shouted down by those similar to Jhon: “shame on you for asking questions, let the bereaved grieve.” I don’t know about you, but asking questions is SOP in the aftermath of any crime. Supposed grief or bereavement is not a shield to honest, open, transparent inquiry.

          Buying off the entire town is not required. Just enough people to ensure that the right mouths stay closed. Fear is a powerful motivator too.

          Sidenote: most of the “victim families” were new arrivals, having only lived in the town for between 6 months and a year.

          Sidenote the second: on the day the Event happened, a film crew taped a man holding a sign up to his window saying “it’s not real.” This has since been nearly scrubbed from the internet, but is out there, and did happen.

          All of the facts above are additive, but the anomalous nature of the “event” does not require all of them to be correct. It simply shows that this event has numerous loose ends, and anyone trained to look for things that don’t add up (trained doctors, detectives) will see red flags.

          The biggest, most incontrovertible bit of evidence that this was a Production, was the issue of the “on site autopsies.” This DOES NOT EVER HAPPEN. An ME would lose their license immediately for even suggesting it. It is malpractice.

          I don’t care what excuses were made for it being done (and they were pretty weak). It simply would not, and did not happen.

          The level of secrecy and stonewalling surrounding this Event alone is enough evidence that shenanigans are going on.

          An independent inquest needs to be convened, looking into every aspect of this event. The financials of the “victims” families need to be gone through, death certificates and autopsy reports need to be made public. Crime scene photos, with appropriate annotations, need to be made public.

          The level of demands (2A infringements) being made based on this event being real necessitates transparency.

          After all, to quote an oft-used line: “if they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of?”

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…requesting maintenance tickets generated at the school for the years 2008-2012. They were resoundingly DENIED.”
          Is there not enough interest to sue? If the tickets are covered by state FOIA, to deny is illegal unless they are evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

          “…let the bereaved grieve.”
          That is not a legal rejoinder. Thre is no provision on any FOIA laws for delaying/denying because of personal suffering.

          “Buying off the entire town is not required. “just enough people to ensure that the right mouths stay closed.”
          That would mean all the records clerks who would be able to access enrollment and attendance records. All the cops in town, because there is no way to keep them totally quiet. All the neighbors and friends of alleged parents, alleged school officials (and their families), all the real estate companies who sold homes (or apatrment leasing agents) to the alleged parents, an unknowable number of people not connected to the school who would routinely know the alleged parents. The only organization I can think of that could throw such a shroud of fear over a group as large as presumed would be one of the drug cartels (who would have no qualms about murdering an entire town).

          “…most of the “victim families” were new arrivals,…”
          Which does not mean “all”, nor does it mean that the new arrivals were completely invisible to the community (and enrollment/attendance records for the new arrivals would be available).”

          “…a man holding a sign up to his window saying “it’s not real.”
          I think that just has to go into the “discard” bin; person unknown, location unknown, purpose/intent unknown.

          “..this event has numerous loose ends…”
          I have not been everywhere, known every investigator, sat through all expert testimony of all murders, but…I do know that it is not at all unusual for investigations to have unresolved “loose ends”. Not every question has an answer germane to the investigation. For instance, a crime is committed using a “getaway car”. Video surveillance is available, is quite clear, and leads to leads that lead to leads the result in identifying the “perps”. The description of the getaway car leads to several possible answers, but there is no reason to determine the actual location, color, make ownership of the car; loose end, not relevant to the apprehension.

          “on site autopsies.”
          Not being part of the investigation, police or legal system in Newtown, I cannot say that nowhere, under any circumstance, have “autopsies” been conducted in the field. “Never” requires very detailed knowledge of a declaration. The alleged event was extraordinary in the extreme.

          I am afraid that all the “conspiracies” suffer from a common theme..lack of evidence is evidence of a coverup; remaining questions” prove that a conspiracy is in place. Even “Fast and Furious” lacks proof that the intent was to bolster legislation for re-instating the “Assault Weapons Ban”. What we do know may justify a claim of criminal negligence on behalf of ATF, and DOJ, but the lack of evidence pointing to a political purpose is not proof of that intent, or proof of conspiracy to cover up the intent.

          Because I have about zero confidence in government at any level, I am open to destroying “conventional wisdom”. However, conjecture and correlation are not proof. There is an old lawyer “mind exercise” about two men, a remote cabin, a gunshot, a death. Two men go into a remotely located, but unoccupied cabin. One of the men is known to be armed. A passerby hears a gunshot from within the cabin. The man known to be armed exits the cabin, gun in hand, and drives away. What happened? What crime was committed?…..How do you know?

        7. avatar GunDoc says:

          Sam, regarding the autopsies, I can speak authoritatively. As a medical doctor, it is an absolute NO GO for a doctor (of which the ME or anyone connected with the ME’s office would be) to perform an autopsy outside of an approved clinical facility. As in, immediate loss of medical license, and probable additional sanctions. There’s no precedent, and no good reason that this would have been done in this circumstance (unless it was done to obfuscate). This cannot be explained away. But no one that is not in the medical community would necessarily know this.

          Regarding the FOIA denials, the repeated attempts by those that have an interest in getting answers have been shouted down or ignored by the majority (witnessed here in this thread) who have no standards for plausibility. If they saw it on TV, it must have happened.

          The biggest red flags remain: no physical evidence (bodies), no crime scene photos or video (despite alleged surveilance cams in the school), implausible/shady/illegal alleged autopsies, death pronouncements by EMS personnel (another NO GO), and the proof that there was zero internet activity at the school between 2008-2013.

          These are hewing as close to admissible evidence as possible. Excluding all of the so-called “tinfoil hattery” that can, for better or worse, make the case appear more “conspiracy kook-ish,” these factors above indicate anomalies deserving a full, independent investigation.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The biggest red flags remain: no physical evidence (bodies)”

          How was that determined? Were the ambulance services queried? Were the funeral homes queried? Were the cemeteries queried?

          As mentioned, formal FOIA requests cannot be ignored, unless the law prohibits certain request types. Bodies cannot be “disappeared” without a trace. If there were no funeral homes involved, no cemeteries, no ambulances (or hearses), then you might have something. A good private investigator should be able to uncover the facts, there.

          I understand your personal experience with autopsies, and those of your colleagues, but it is a big country. Have you, or others, polled every ME office to determine that there are no circumstances, ordinary or extraordinary, that would allow for autopsies to not be required (all jurisdictions)? I am aware that some jurisdictions do not require autopsies where the death was not suspicious, as in forensic autopsy to determine a non-obvious cause of death. Indeed, I recently buried a relative, in a small town, where the cause of death was obvious trauma, and there was no autopsy (I would have been required to bear the entire expense if I demanded one). Admittedly, the episode was not one where an autopsy was attempted in the field. Nonetheless, the manner of death was not questionable, thus the local and state laws permitted the cause of death to be declared without autopsy.

          But again, it is not the lack of evidence, no matter how dramatic, that actually proves anything. Even in a locality that prohibited any and all autopsies, there would have been bodies transported and disposed of, leaving records. Not so?

          Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

        9. avatar GunDoc says:

          “were the ambulance services queried?”

          The ambulance services? The “EMS” that were on hand “declared everyone dead” and left. No “queries” need be made.

          Nobody was transported by EMS/Public Medical Transport. That is a matter of public record. Are you beginning to see how atypical this “Event” really was? No wounded. All allegedly KIA (except a teacher that then fell off the face of the earth). Bodies were allegedly transported after autopsy, by unknown means, in the early morning hours. Highly irregular, to say the least. I challenge you to find another instance similar. Hint: you won’t

          There were no funeral homes. No hearses. The parents were allegedly never allowed to see the bodies.

          And it is not a matter of regional policies regarding the autopsies. It is SOP, even outside the country, in some of the rudest third world countries I have been to. An active crime scene is NOT A MORGUE.

          I realize this is not your world, but this is just basic, basic medical practice, and crime scene methodology. It would be the same as deciding to hold an ice cream social in the middle of an active crime scene. There are procedures, universal, for just this reason.

          So, to recap: no ambulance or hearse transport. A matter of PUBLIC RECORD that the “parents” were not allowed to see the “bodies.” I’m wondering what kind of spell allows for people to continue treating this Event as even remotely credible. Substituting emotion for logic rarely ends well.

          And sometimes a cigar is in fact a dick.

          How deeply have you looked into this on your own? What more would it take to convince you that it didn’t happen?

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Have not “looked into” Sandy Hook, at all. Had heard there were a number of charges that the entire thing was faked. Whenever “fake” is charged, I always ask, “For what purpose”? Something as elaborate as you describe would be beyond the capability of local authorities. Too many places for leakage.

          As to the EMT transport, it is unlikely there would have been enough EMTs vehicles available to handle the victims. In any event, if there were bodies, and if they were moved by private companies (hospitals or funeral homes) there would be records to review. If there provably were no records of transport or funerals, or if there were no funerals (not all would have been closed casket), and if parents were denied the right to see the bodies at wakes, or viewings, or funerals, there would have been a huge outcry from them. The parents exist, or they don’t. Provable. The children in the school existed, or they didn’t/don’t. Who has the resources to prevent over a hundred children from talking about kids killed, or kids being told that kids who didn’t exist had been killed?

          Unless the entire town, or at least all the students, children and school employees are monitored 24/7, unless an entire segment of a town is in fear of their lives (fear of whom?), someone would have leaked/talked by now. Not every student and employee at the school was killed. All of these people are intimidated into silence? Paid off?

          Again, what is the purpose of Sandy Hook? Why was the story reported? Who benefited? Who suffered (external to the story)? Isn’t it curious that only nine families are suing Remington? Only nine families account for all the deaths? What about survivors? Why have they not joined the suit, or filed one of their own?

          What is curious about all this is that one woman led the mission to hold PG&E accountable for water pollution. That woman has made a career out of activism. Is there no one with that sort of determination available to pursue the claims about a fake murder spree? No one ?

          I remain unconvinced, interested, but unconvinced.

    3. avatar 2aguy says:

      It should have never reached this point. I know people don’t want to be mean to the families who have lost children, but this persecution of innocent people who played no part in the deaths of their children needs to be addressed. Lashing out because of your pain is one thing, but these are innocent people getting smeared by these parent’s at the urging of anti gunners. From what I have seen here on TTAG and other places……the police knew about the shooter and what he told others he wanted to do? Where is that law suit against the police? You know, the ones we actually pay to stop these things….

    4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The central issue here is causality. The plaintiffs are using a claimed moral imperative to make causal linkages that are not, in fact, there. We’ve seen this happen before with, for instance, “violent” video games which aggrieved plaintiffs argued induced their children to commit violent acts. The courts ruled, of course, that simply watching a video, reading a text, or seeing an image did not “cause” a person to commit violent acts.

    5. avatar E. Zach Lee-Wright says:

      Chip Bennett – In an earlier comment below you said “…even though federal law prohibits someone under 21 from purchasing a handgun.” You also said in another comment this may have been a straw purchase because the kid was a prohibited person. I respectfully believe both statements are incorrect. A person under the age of 21 is not prohibited by federal law from owning a handgun. The law prohibits FFLs from transferring a handgun to someone under 21 but nothing in the law states the kid can’t own it. In this case we are talking about a rifle so the relevant age is 18. Because the kid can own a gun, he was not a prohibited person ergo, this would not have been a straw purchase assuming his mother had intended for him to have the gun.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Hi Zach,

        True, I could be completely wrong (though, note the distinction between possess and transfer). It was an entirely theoretical conversation.

        The ultimate point was: nothing unlawful happened with respect to transfer of the firearm(s) in question, but even if anything unlawful could even possibly have happened, it began and ended with Lanza’s mother, and/or with the FFL – and where the FFL is concerned, it would have nothing at all to do with negligent entrustment.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The lawsuit seems to want to build a case that not only did Remington market the rifle to “gamers”, but that Remington is to guilty of selling to legal owners who might, unknown to anyone, have “gamers” in their homes who would kill the legal owner and go on a rampage.

  3. avatar PROUD chicano says:

    Shame on them for dragging those families through the court system for a publicly stunt.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      I was going to say that it’s going to really suck when the courts make the plaintiffs (i.e. the victims) pay Rem’s legal fees.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    This will not go thru. If it does the price of a new car will be a quarter of a million dollars. It will cost that much per car to lawyer proof the company.

    Companies that make hammers, axs, bats, cars will be sued to extinction. The economy would grind to a halt while a few lawyers got richer than kings.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Ordinarily, jwm, I’d agree with that.

      They are out for the extermination of every gun company, and they do it with glee…

    2. avatar Stereodude says:

      Don’t be so certain. Never underestimate leftist judges. Look at what they did to Trump’s completely legal travel “bans”. The laws and established court decisions and precedents couldn’t be more clear that the President can ban any one or group from entry into the country for any reason at any time for any period of time and yet leftist judges had no problem ignoring all that and abusing their power. Assuming a sane legal system the Executive branch will ultimately prevail in the courts, but you clearly can’t count on courts to follow the law or exhibit logical thinking.

  5. avatar Richard McGannon, Esq. says:

    Blaming Gun Manufacturers for the evil done with guns is like blaming the fork and knife for making you obese.

    1. avatar Rincoln says:

      It’s more like blaming the steel mill, but yes, you are on the right track.

      1. avatar fiundagner says:

        Actually there’s a thought. Why don’t they blame the miners who mined the or that was then sold to the steel companies who produced the steel which then sold it to Remington. Let’s hold them accountable all the way back to the beginning of the chain. In fact the miners are more negligent. Because they are mining the ore knowing full well that some of that ore is going to be given to steel companies and statistically some of that steel is going to end up in guns and statistically some of those guns are going to commit unlawful Acts. may as well ride the train to the end of the tracks if it’s going down anyways

  6. avatar Ogre says:

    Lawyers doing “legalspeak” to the microphones to pander to the public. Even in Connecticutt, I can’t imagine that a straight-thinking judge or justice would accept such wooly thinking.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      This is PR-speak. It has squat-all to do with any reasonable legal theory.

    2. avatar Mike B IN WI says:

      “I can’t imagine that a *straight-thinking judge or justice* would accept such wooly thinking.” Finding a (or enough) of those straight-thinking judge(s) or justice(s) is unfortunately the problem. That is what scares me the most, judges and justices who are NOT straight thinking but rather who are progressive ideologues and will rule based on that rather than on the law and logic and (genuine) common sense.

  7. avatar LetsGOcrazy says:

    What about the gas and electric pumped in to our housing. The annual fatality rate make that a clear case of negligence if not racketeering.

  8. avatar achmed says:

    This is stomach turning. They should be ashamed of themselves.

  9. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    These parents and their lawyers really should go after Hollywood instead. They would have a better chance of winning since there is no specific law blocking the attempt and in terms of the possible influence on the crazy Lanza kid, they would have a better chance of factually being right about it.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      They should be laughed out of the courtroom, or better yet, sued for libel and dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit. This is exactly why there is a PLCAA, not to unfairly shield an industry, but to stop ridiculous cases like this that have no standing.

      The few gun advertisements I see usually have a military/police SOCOM/SWAT operator type looking all cool with his weapon, the message seeming to be “get cool warfighter weapons like the real heros use” but if anything that would make me want to go join the military, police, or go fight in Iraq. They always show the good guys. He is more likely to think slaughtering children in a school is acceptable by watching Starwars than looking at gun ads.

      Though they might make him think he could get a cyborg girlfriend with assault shotgun legs… Here’s looking at you EAA!

  10. avatar Bruce Monro says:

    I’m waiting for the car manufacturers to be sued, because a drunk driver killed an innocent person! How can an inanimate object injure, maim, or kill anyone? It is impossible.

    1. avatar Snatchums says:

      An inanimate object most certainly can kill you, a boulder falling 500 feet off a cliff face and landing square on your head will kill you. A bullet passing through your cerebellum at 2,500fps will kill you. It’s the intentional act of murder that is a human construct and requires a conscious, deliberate action.

  11. avatar cruzo1981 says:

    Mr. Koskoff, please show us any evidence of direct contact between any Remington employee and that loser. Oh, wait there is no evidence. Ok Your honor we move for a mistrial.

  12. avatar Joe R. says:

    [AS LONG AS WE’RE MAKING UP STUPID EXCUSES AND PARDONING THE FING IDIOT WHO WAS THE REAL PROBLEM] Then the evil POS (D) have courted gun owners and 2A people FOR 100 YEARS begging the latter to rise up and smash the living shit out of them.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      Joe — you know how everyone looks at Adam Lanza’s picture and says “we should have locked him up years ago, you can tell just by looking at him?”

      And you know how everyone looks at the Texas church shooter and says “escaped from a mental institution, domestic violence, plus just look at him — you can tell!”

      Hate to break it to you, bud, but — we can tell. You need help. Get it, before TTAG has to write an article about you.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        At least you never claimed I was wrong.

        AND txtd . . .

        YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN MENTAL PICTURES.

        Turn yourself in for questioning.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        “article” ?

        I hope to be one of the featured sponsors here in the not too soon.

        1. avatar TexTed says:

          By “an article”, I mean something with a headline like “deranged gun nut goes on shooting rampage against Capitol Hill democratic congressmen.” That’s how you come across.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          By “sponsors” I meant someone, somewhat, currently employed in the firearms business, i.e., on-file, and requiring annual registration with the ATF&E and the U.S. State Department’s ITAR offices, and one who hopes to be coming to TTAG sometime soon, requesting a quote for some advertising space.

          I am (also) an honorably discharged U.S. NAVY Veteran. I am licensed and bonded in several current and previous employment positions.

          And, I am A BONA FIDE U.S. CITIZEN.

          W H O

          T H E

          F

          A R E

          Y O U

          ???

          I only use caps because your brain likes it. Some small part of your psyche registers it as ‘yelling’ but any marketing guru would tell you that my ALL CAPS and the S P R E A D I N G – O U T of the letters is actually appealing to the majority of your brain that processes any information visually because it considers it both help in discerning the important parts, as well as making it easier to read. It gets you at least somewhat on my side,

          REGARDLESS
          O F
          W H A T
          I
          T Y P E.

          About your other comment, YES, I foreswear (and hope the rest of you do as well) that I will (continue to) support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will support the orders of the President of the United States upon our Military. So help me God.

          Further, I swear that, should I ever deem necessary, I will follow my own will in executing Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence, and only assume that you’d do the same. You might say that you wouldn’t (or wasn’t planning to) but what would you say if you were?

  13. avatar CTstooge says:

    Remington courted me for years with their crappy guns. Call and text me relentlessly. Show up at my door at 2am stinking drunk. I had no choice but get a restraining order.

    No Means No, Remington.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      LOL

      Yep, Remington even called us, asking about you, where you was, whose yous was hangin out with, was you being courted by any other gun manufacturers. . .

  14. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Some lawyers have no guilt at all…wow.
    He was also “courted” by Hollywood and TV…all the sex and violence… .
    He was coddled by society and his parents…such a “special” boy.
    People are responsible parties…not objects.
    The guns worked as designed.
    Hope the case is thrown out quickly to avoid wasting even more time and money.

  15. avatar Stuart says:

    “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
    — Thomas Sowell

    “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law.”
    — Louis D. Brandeis

  16. avatar AlanInFL says:

    So I can sue Hostess now for my addiction to Twinkies.

    1. avatar Astigmatism says:

      We can sue the entire candy/pastry industry now!
      Especially just after Halloween or Christmas.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Don’t forget “Little Debbie’s got a Snack For You”.

      DAMN YOU ZEBRA CAKES ! ! !

      ; )

  17. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they have been courting him for years. The courtship between Remington and Adam Lanza is at the heart of the case.” – Attorney Joshua D. Koskoff

    Yes, of course they did…/sar

    What a of dolt…

  18. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Sick of lawyer ambulance chasers? Me too, BAN AMBULANCES.

  19. avatar MarkF says:

    Damn that Remington. I’ve been sitting here for years just waiting and they IGNORED me! Sure, I admit my eye tended to drift to certain European models (CZ, I love you!), but I was still open to others, shall we say. Just sitting here, hungry and open, and though I’m not rich, I damn sure have means.

    What was wrong with trying to get MY attention? What is so wrong with ME? You hate me, don’t you, Remington?

    Bastards!!!!

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Ben & Jerry’s on line one, Mr. Mark. . .

      Taurus holding on line two.

      : )

  20. avatar Anymouse says:

    The case will eventually be thrown out, and families are going to get F’d at the end of this. If they’re the ones driving the case, they deserve it. I remember stories of families blatantly transferring assets to try to protect themselves from the blowback of having to pay defendant’s legal fees after a PLCAA defeat. All these appeals are just increasing the legal fees. Even if the Connecticut courts ignore the law and make a political decision, federal appeals will eventually rule correctly.

  21. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    but…but… Remmie… you said I was your one and only! And here you are courting that weird looking kid from Colorado!?!?!?!? WTF!! Do I even matter to you?

    You know what Remington F*CK YOU! I’m going to go be with Ruger, Sig, and SCCY! At least I matter to them!!

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    The so-called plaintiffs should pay when this frivolous lawsuit(hopefully!) fails. Lucky Gunner the hell out of these lowlife idiots. Mama Lanza legally purchased her gun and her demon filled BOY murdered her with it. If at 1st you don’t succeed…😡😡😡

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      They did once, when the brady bunch started this mess, and then walked away, leaving the plaintiffs to shoulder the financial cost of the loss…

  23. avatar C.S. says:

    The auto manufacturers have been courting ISIS for years.

  24. avatar GS650G says:

    Every time a law or rule fails to stop a gun crime all it does is inch us closer to to Big One which is a ban on possession followed by confiscation or turn in.

    That’s the end game and they don’t give a shit who is president, which party holds Congress or what the SCOTUS is made up of. They won’t stop until that is law of the land.

    Now who enforces it will be an interesting matter.

    1. avatar HP says:

      They haven’t thought of the logistics of that, I guarantee it. Imagine the scenario: The next President is a far left Democrat, and both houses of Congress are controlled by Democrats as well. Somehow, laws are passed which outlaw, let’s say, all semi-auto firearms. Forget about the SCOTUS for a moment, I assure you the Democrats won’t wait for the matter to be settled by them. The “Australian Model” is implemented, it nets some guns, but is widely ignored. The Democrats, long having lost patience with the deplorable hinterlanders, opt to use force. Then it dawns on them, the sheer numbers of guns in circulation, and the complete and total lack of manpower to accomplish what they want. Not to mention they only have a very, very rough guess as to where they are based on whatever data could be mined from 4473’s. It’s not that they don’t have the will, they just physically don’t have the means. Not even close. They never stopped to think that they’d have to do this the hard way, they just figured Americans would “turn ’em all in!”. But now that that’s failed, what to do? Examples will be a made out of a few unfortunate souls, but that just strengthens the resolve of people to hide what they have. It also makes those people scared and desperate, and people who are scared and desperate do dangerous things. This is not lost on the members of law enforcement who have forsaken their oaths and tried to enforce confiscation. Their oath might not have meant anything, but being put in danger for some liberal nutjob politician would have a pretty sobering effect. What happens next?

      1. avatar DARREN says:

        That’s easy. There will be no arms gatherers going door to door. We will have to turn in our arms to prove our innocence, to thaw the freeze on bank accounts, turn the utilities back on, deposit social security funds, government provided insurance benefits, etc.

        1. avatar Jeffro says:

          That would be when .gov functionaries start leaking vital fluids. They are our neighbors, they value their homes, families, and lives as much as we do.

  25. avatar HP says:

    YOU PEOPLE STAY AWAY FROM REMINGTON, SHE IS COURTING ME AND IS ALL MINE!

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Fine, you can have her, I already got my ACR stock and couple of Ti-rant cans, I don’t have a need for anything else.

  26. avatar Bob Watson says:

    I was innocent and as pure as driven snow back in the early 70’s. I do not know why those N frame Smith and Wessons and Ruger Blackhawks seduced me into their menage-a-trois. It was easy for them, they shamelessly flaunted their magnum calibers at me. I fell so low, I had to take up reloading to keep them fed.
    Now that Smith and Wesson has dumped me, Those .41 magnum, 4.2″ barreled, stainless steel Ruger Redhawks and .44 special, 5 shot, 5″ barreled, blue steel GP 100’s continue to exploit me.
    I tell you, I am a broken man. Or at least I am usually broke. I have reached the point where I no longer even whimper when a 7″, stainless steel, .45 Colt Redhawk shows up.

  27. avatar rt66paul says:

    Maybe a warning inscribed on the firearm saying that “mentally unstable people that could be a danger to themselves and others as well as any felon is prohibited from owning this firearm” would keep this from happenning.

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    Abuse

    of

    Process

    claim, anyone?

  29. avatar Roymond says:

    I think the only thing Remington is guilty of is being ridiculous — “Consider your man card reissued”… seriously?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email