FILE - In this Jan. 28, 2013, file photo, firearms training unit Detective Barbara J. Mattson, of the Connecticut State Police, holds up a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, produced by Remington Arms and the same make and model of gun used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook School shooting, for a demonstration during a hearing of a legislative subcommittee reviewing gun laws, at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn. Remington Arms has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Tuesday, July 28, 2020, for the second time in a little more than two years, despite a recent surge in gun demand. Remington is currently embroiled in a lawsuit involving the the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)
Previous Post
Next Post

After a deranged 20-y/o murdered his own mother and stole her Bushmaster (a brand owned by Remington) rifle, he used it to attack Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in December, 2012, tragically killing 20 students and six adults. About 18 months later, a lawsuit was filed against Remington seeking damages for the victims’ families. Now, two bankruptcy filings later, the new Remington has offered nearly $33 million in an attempt to settle.

The legal claim against Remington is that Bushmaster’s advertising and marketing contributed to the shooting by “courting [Lanza] for years.” Claims such as:

It wasn’t just that they marketed the weapon looking for people with the characteristics of Adam Lanza. It’s that Adam Lanza heard the message, and was driven specifically to the Bushmaster for his weapon for this combat mission.

This NY Daily News article details the layers’ case for these claims, including the quote above from attorney Josh Koskoff and referencing advertisements like the one pictured above.

Marketing feel and style entirely aside, I’m surprised — mind you, I’m no lawyer — that these claims withstood the sniff test at all considering the shooter didn’t actually purchase or choose the specific firearm as far as I’m aware.

Screenshot from the Sandy Hook shooting’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

From all accounts I’ve seen, it was his mother’s rifle and may have been the only semi-automatic rifle in the home. If this is accurate, the assertion that the shooter chose this specific gun due in whole or in part to Bushmaster’s marketing — is there even proof that he ever saw or was aware of the marketing or the brand? — seems tenuous at best. Additionally, it was one of four firearms, all of different brands, that the shooter took with him to the school and also wasn’t the gun he used to kill his own mom (that was a bolt action .22 LR).

At any rate, perhaps new Remington’s acquiescence is even more bothersome? We received this email from a reader:

If Remington settles this lawsuit, I don’t GAF how many green boxes show up on the shelves, even if they are dirt cheap. They can go into bankruptcy a third time for all I care.

I appreciate that they got a bad deal from the CT Supreme Court, but… if they want to be in the game they need to fight and not be a Dick’s.

To be fair, the “green boxes” of ammo are now owned by a completely different company from the Remington that makes firearms. In the most recent bankruptcy, “Big Green’s” assets and business units were liquidated and different groups purchased different segments. Remington Ammunition is now a completely separate company from the company offering this settlement. Just FYI, dear reader, although I agree with your sentiment.

We do need to fight.

 

Previous Post
Next Post

93 COMMENTS

  1. Never Bend the Knee! EVER!!!
    They need to fight and stick their lawyer fees to the losing party.
    Remington is dead to me if they settle.

      • “That’s chumming the water.”

        That’s the intent. Build a foundation of precedent a future anti-gun lawsuit can exploit.

        “See how many more lawsuits this spawns.”

        For how many *decades* did lawsuits claiming tobacco companies were causing cancer were laughed out of court?

        It’s the same battle plan in action again. The only difference is, tobacco in itself isn’t protected by the constitution. Guns are. That just means they will get creative until the first crack in the foundation is found, and exploited…

    • This is a “complete asinine move” on Remington’s part! This will open up the continuous floodgate with NO END to law suits…..they might as well melt down everything they have, then close their doors and throw the padlocks on forever!

      • I hate to break it to you, but “opening the floodgates” is exactly what they have in mind, Remington was bought by a shell company owned by soros a few years ago.

        • Remington was split up last fall and sold to multiple different companies, most of which have long, solid reputations in the firearm industry such as Vista Outdoors (owns Federal Ammunition), Sierra bullets, Palmetto State Armory, Franklin Armory, etc. There no weird shell companies going on here at all.

  2. Why? the gun didn’t kill anyone, the bullets did because some psychopath pulled the trigger with intent to kill. .Did Remington also make the ammo? The gun didn’t malfunction, it performed as designed. This is a BS settlement. Now anyone can sue gun manufactures even though the gun had nothing to do with it. When a police officer shoots and kills someone, do the criminal’s family get to sue the gun manufactures also? Pure insanity. But a vaccine that has killed 6,000 +, well there’s no recourse for those families….

    • correction. the vaccine has killed over 45,000. There currently a lawsuit about the gov hiding them.
      One of my lifelong friends was killed by the vaccine.
      RIP Steven

        • Name a single number/stat related to COVID that isn’t utter bullshit?

          600,000+ deaths? Please, maybe, MAYBE it’s 20% of that number, and that’s being generous.

          My point is how would you ever know? Sadly the vaccine deaths are likely counted as COVID deaths too.

  3. This will have a ton of blowback on liberals and the Democratic Party.
    They created a template for people to file lawsuits against manufacturers, groups, and organizations over who’s really responsible for death and injuries.
    I guess this means we can now file a lawsuit against the Democratic party for all the mayhem and death it’s created in all the major cities.

    • “They created a template for people to file lawsuits against manufacturers, groups, and organizations”

      certain manufacturers, groups, and organizations, yes. those that support The People will be mysteriously exempt.

  4. Dangerous, dangerous precedent!! Thanks a lot! Spend that money lobbying for the return of capital punishment!

  5. Never pay the Danegeld. Never pay the Jizya.

    Once you start, you’ll never stop until you’ve been sucked dry.

    The only way to stop the bully is to make them pay for their aggression.

    • Indeed. I’ve come to realize over the years that – while it is often difficult or even impossible to determine perfectly, irrefutably correct answers – it is generally quite easy to simplify the problem by knocking off some objectively Wrong Answers with simple analysis.

      More often than not, I apply that mindset to material challenges rather than philosophical or political questions, but “tribute” is absolutely and always an example of a Wrong Answer in the latter categories.

    • Defendants quite often offer to pay large settlements, which are actually much smaller than the ultimate projected settlement and litigation costs. Business decision. Sadly. Remington has a history of bad business decisions. The ramifications of this bad business decision are much more costly to America and the gun industry/2A.

  6. That’s $32,999,999.97 too much. A penny (one-third) to the shysters, the families can fight over the remaining 2 cents.

    Does that mean every time a firearm is stolen or misappropriated, the manufacturer is liable. Mom knew her son had shit-for-brains, and should have take any and all reasonable steps to ensure their safekeeping, like 99.9999%+ firearms owners do, whether their kids are dumb-asses or not.

    Now, the families may get greedy and say “add a zero or two to that,” at which time Remington can say that they attempted to settle in good faith, and go to trial. Remington then gets to explore the victims’, their families and their sphincters.

      • They sued her homeowners insurance and estate for 1.5 million and got it.
        This Remington lawsuit is 9 families, the others have made peace with this tragedy.
        There is a lot that I want say but I cannot do that w/o coming across as crass.
        I will just keep what I know to myself but I will say this:
        These families fought like cats and dogs over the 28 million that was donated.
        The Wikipedia article is ripe full of misinformation. It’s utter nonsense.
        The Off-site “Investigation” (citations 127 and 128) are hearsay.
        Remington was always pretty stupid when it came to liability,
        They knew there was a problem with the Walker trigger in 1948 and
        yet chose to fight each case in court instead of spending six cents to fix it.
        There’s a lot more but that’s all I have to say.

    • “Does that mean every time a firearm is stolen or misappropriated, the manufacturer is liable.”

      It opens a legal window we can exploit in return against them.

      Smart lawyers can then start building the case that F-150s (and other vehicles) are somehow responsible for criminal use of trucks, like when drunks get behind the wheel and maim and kill.

      What’s good for the goose, is good for that gander. Use Alinsky’s Rules for Radical against them :

      “Force the enemy to live by their own rules”…

      • Well in that case it would have to be Subaru and Tesla, not Ford lol

        Mind you, I have nothing against these companies, but if you want to put the screws to the left, those two companies getting harmed, would be noticed.

      • This is a settlement, not a ruling. It doesn’t directly affect any future cases. It indirectly allows the CT Supreme Court’s “negligent marketing” decision stand since there won’t be any challenge to it, for now. Other judges can, and have, use the CT reasoning to let “negligent marketing” cases proceed in their jurisdictions.

  7. Fire the legal department and hire some lawyers who know how to fight.

    If Remington bribes the plaintiffs to stop sueing, I will sell my 870 and never purchase another Remington product.

    Remington makes self-defense products but they will sell-out the industry rather than standing their ground.

  8. I wrote the email, I now realize that “Remington Ammunition is now a completely separate company from the company offering this settlement” and also that 2 of 4 of the bankrupt companies have agreed to the offer.

    I am still not sure I care. If Vista or whomever wants to protect the brand / intellectual property that they bought from Remington Outdoors, maybe they should try object to the settlement in bankruptcy court. Do something other than pay lip service on the internet. This settlement will create a bad precedent that will come back on Vista, Ruger, and everyone else. Otherwise, eff em.

    $33 million is 33 million too much.

  9. So Remington rendered the PLCAA Null & Void………..

    Now, every FFL and Gun Maker can expect a Democrats Billionaire Donor and CCP Bootlicker Bankrolled WRECKLESS SLAPP Lawsuit against them.

    I will never buy Remington, ever again. Hopefully, this puts an end to that Shyster Company for the backstabbing move they just pulled off.

    • “So Remington rendered the PLCAA Null & Void…”

      It opens the window wide-assed open for SCOTUS to rule on it…

  10. Dunno what else they could do…of course they ain’t “guilty”. Neither were they cop’s who fought with a drug addled thug in Minneapolis. Or the cop’s who’ve shot many criminals in Chiraq. It’s to avoid a billion dollar judgement…and we have a commie justice system in place.

    • They could have fought the case. If they lost, they could have appealed to the Fed courts under PLCAA and gotten all their legal fees awarded. Instead, the next guy has to fight “negligent marketing.”

  11. Let’s put the blame for this where it really belongs. A wacked out over protective, doting mother who refused to confront her homicidal little monster.

      • Deborah, it makes a strong argument that she should have secured them better…

        • Strong? Not so fast. Let’s say the firearms were secured. How long do you think someone capable of murdering their own mother would sit still for that?

          The perp could also have used a laundry list of household related items to murder someone in their sleep. I.E. ice pick, hammer, plastic bag, baseball bat, etc. In other words…Firearms are not to be habitually singled out and chased around like some kind of shiny fishing lure.

          As previously noted and you musta missed it…The stage was set and the ball began to bounce with the Gun Free Zone Signs that clearly held the door open and welcomed in the perp. Frankly the mother probably tried to a better job securing her firearms than the school did trying to secure teachers and kids with Gun Free Zone Signs. Don’t you think?

  12. Never mind all who were behind plastering Gun Free Zone Signs that lured kids and their incompetent parents into a false sense of security let’s point fingers at the Gun.
    And let’s have a once proud company drop to their knees while guilty as sin Gun Control Zealots and their Gun Free Zone invitations to criminals walk free.

    Remington you cannot buy respect.

  13. Wow, what a really bad move here on Remington’s part. When you pay a Blackmailer and that’s what this is, they will always keep coming back for more and more money, without end. The only way to stop these people and their lawyers, is to fight until the bitter end, all the way up to the Supremes.

    No one “Courted” this idiot coward, who murdered his own mother, stole her rifle (not his) and then decided to murder innocent children. None of this is Remington’s fault or anyone’s, only the shooter. If this coward stole his mother’s car and ran the kids down, would Ford or Chevy be on the hook financially, I think not.

  14. To fight the lawsuit, Remington (whatever that is anymore) would need the cash to do so. Would $33 million be sufficient to go all the way to the SC? No one (corporate or not) “settles” unless pursuing would be so costly that the defendant would be financially ruined/bankrupted. Principles have a price.

    The entire point of the law suit was to establish precedent for others to follow; now, we have it. “Action beats re-action.”; where have we heard this before?

    • Even with the most powerful lawyers it doesn’t cost 33M$ to fight something up to SCOTUS.

      What needs to needs to be done now is for firearms buyers to show remington that they made the wrong tradeoff and put a stake through Remington.

      • “….put a stake through Remington.”

        That is a business decision for individuals to make. The companies that bought pieces parts of Remington saw it as a good business move, not a political statement. No corporation associated with the label “Remington” owes “us” an obligation to do anything other than follow the law; no requirement to “fight” for preservation of the Second Amendment.

        • And we have no obligation to support a company that sacrifices our rights for their convenience — e.g. Springfield Armory, Rock River Arms, and now Remington Arms (not ammo).

  15. If they went bankrupt and liquidated, how can the new Remington be liable for anything related to the original company?

    • “If they went bankrupt and liquidated, how can the new Remington be liable for anything related to the original company?”

      Depends on the terms of the sale(s), and bankruptcy court demands.

      • “Depends on the terms of the sale(s), and bankruptcy court demands.”

        That motivates them to file suit in a circuit known to be friendly to the political left…

        • “That motivates them to file suit in a circuit known to be friendly to the political left…”

          Thinking slow tonite; not sure how friendly judges are a factor in the bankruptcy/bankruptcy sale. Was remembering that in order to sell failing assets, the exchange for a low price might be assuming liabilities of the original company. Thus, a buyer of the company name might be required to absorb the expense of defending a past action of the selling company; answering the question of how a “new” Remington would be mixed up in a lawsuit against the “old” Remington.

  16. “Remington are a bunch of coward”

    By what authority, principle, feeling are others required to ruin themselves for our benefit? The winners of “moral victories” remain losers of the contested matter. The business of business is business. If we demand public corporations sacrifice their economic health, then we are obligated to be stockholders of of those corporations. And….we have an obligation to agitate among the stockholders in a manner designed to gain the majority position of voting stock holders.

    How many of us are willing to indefinitely (or for any period whatsoever) financially support individuals, families, companies who gain the “moral victory”, but lose everything else? How many of the small businesses ruined by “the woke” are we (aligned with their principles) supporting? Small businesses closed because of their principles. How many? Would you quit your job, or reject your benefits if your employer does not strictly adhere to your political principles? Or would you make the calculation of which action is more beneficial to your and yours?

  17. Really STUPID move on Remington,
    Now the lawsuits will never end.they bought Para Ordinance also, too bad .
    Someone needs to sue Remington for being VERY BAD FOR THE GUN INDUSTRY…. PERIOD.

  18. Totally dumb move. By paying they tacitly admit some responsibility. Which will open the floodgates of lawsuits looking for a payout using this as precedent. And not just Remington, but all gun-related industries . Who are your lawyers working for, Big Green.?

  19. Remington just stuck it to all the other gun manufacturers by caving. Shame on them. I wouldn’t buy any of their crap anyway. I hope they choke.

  20. There’s a whole lot of stupid at Roundhill Group, owners of the Remington firearm brand. First they chose to stay in New York where they will have all that is bad, from labor unions to a hostile legal system. Both have as a goal putting them out of business the former unintentionally and the latter as a career enhancement. Offering thirty three million dollars to settle what amounts to a nuisance lawsuit is a serious error as it essentially admits responsibility for the acts of a deranged person who may never have seen an advertisement for the rifle. Of the two one might think the second would be the more rational but one would be mistaken. If they settle the plaintiffs will only be back for more.

  21. Hot diggity damn I’m suing the sht out of Ford. Possum haters driving pickups killed a lot of my relatives.
    .
    Seriously Remington really screwed up caving on that lawsuit .
    Weird way to eliminate the competition, who can pay out the most before you go broke. This isnt going to end with just Remington.

  22. As I remember it was Franklin Armory Holdings that bought Bushmaster. If so you should direct your comments to them.

  23. F**k this. And f**k Remington.
    Drag them to the Supreme Court and get a ruling on the PLCAA and don’t give them money and a bad precedent.

  24. @Anymouse
    “And we have no obligation to support a company that sacrifices our rights for their convenience — e.g. Springfield Armory, Rock River Arms, and now Remington Arms (not ammo).”

    Correct. Fine to declare a boycott; unfine to demand a company spend its money defending our individual rights. A boycott is a business decision for the individual; negotiating a settlement in lieu of a court fight is a business’s decision for the business; either may be making the right, or wrong, decision.

    The business of business is business; not fighting proxy wars.

  25. This whole case has been an enormous Fustercluck. The fact remains that Lanza was not the owner of the weapon, his mother was. Lanza committed three felonies to access the weapon. He stole it. He murdered to attain it, and by virtue of his mental health issues, could not lawfully own it.

    How did Remington market the weapon to Lanza? He was never the Owner. Connecticut Supreme Court Screwed the Pooch Unconstitutionally letting the Lawsuit proceed.

  26. So, who’s next? Ford? GM? Chrysler? A legal product being held liable for illegal actions of a third party will kill Capitalism. Just what the Commies want. Who will be next?

    • “So, who’s next? Ford? GM? Chrysler?”

      Long, long way off….if ever. Everyone needs a car/truck; no one needs a gun.

  27. Cerebus Group strikes again…if they really settle, they’ve outed themselves as duplicitous cowardly rats and are dead to me.

    • “Cerebus Group strikes again…”

      Consider…..

      Soros, Gates, Bloomberg could combine to easily purchase every gun manufacturer in the country. Wonder why it is taking them so long?

  28. Remember this nine relatives or “families” out of 26 dead.
    9 people or ” families” who have already made millions off of a tragedy.
    Now they want another $3.66 million dollars each over their dead kids.
    Whoever offered the settlement should fight it tooth and nail.
    Vista Outdoors, Roundhill Group, Franklin Armory?
    Losing a child is horrible, making money off of it is a disgrace.
    It isn’t Cerebus Group, they sold it off to seven different buyers while in bankruptcy.

    • “Losing a child is horrible, making money off of it is a disgrace.”

      It isn’t about the money*, it’s the principle; some one must pay for tragedy.

      * When it isn’t about the money, it’s always about the money.

  29. The parents of the kids were way out of line after this happened.
    These were SIX year olds and some of the “families” thought that their kids were worth more then others.
    3 years after the fact they were arguing over how much each family should receive.
    It was ugly because some parents were saying their dead children would go farther in life.
    IOWS “Your kid is stupid and my kid was already writing in cursive.”
    I know somebody who lives in Newtown, Connecticut and they told me things that were very disturbing about the parents. I cannot cite a source but it’s someone I grew up with so I’ll take their word for it.
    The person I grew up with lived a couple of doors down from one of the kids and their family.
    I was actually banned from another website after some nutjob claimed this and the LV shooting was a hoax. Being that I knew a couple of people that were in LV at the concert neither was a “hoax”.
    I get the whole PLCAA argument, it’s a legitimate point.
    My main problem is that this is rather personal to me but in end it’s ALL about Nine greedy couples.
    They want more money, they made 7 figures when it was split up the first time.
    Of course it’s all about the MONEY, It always is.

  30. Does whoever it is that runs Remington these days have the proverbial clue regarding what their offer amounts to? Have they actually thought about exactly what such an offer does? I suspect not, but then I’m on the outside looking in and wondering.

  31. I was pretty happy when Remington Arms was bought by Roundhill after Cerberus ran the business into the dirt.

    After this settlement Roundhill’s Remington will NEVER see a penny of my money. I understand that that frivolous legal challenges are both expensive and a huge marketing issue for gun companies but Roundhill bought Remington knowing this case was pending. They knew what they were getting into and they did it anyway. Then they chose to capitulate to the liberal anti-2A agenda instead of doing what was right.

    As far as I’m concerned Remington Firearms is now a company I will never do business with. Fortunately Remington Ammunition was purchased by Vista and not Roundhill.

  32. I agree with most everyone on here. If they settle, it sets a bad precedent. A precedent I cannot support, hence, I cannot support a company willing to bow to this tyranny. So if they do pay, I have bought my last Remington firearm from them.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here