So, the big news yesterday is that Remington has made an initial offer to the parents and family of some of the Sandy Hook Elementary School victims, who were killed in a mass shooting on December 14, 2012. The suit was based on a Connecticut law, negligent entrustment, which basically says that if you sell something you know to be dangerous and the purchase then uses the item in a dangerous way, the seller can be held liable.
The defendant in this case, Remington Arms, which owns the gun company – Bushmaster – which actually manufactured the gun – tried twice to get the action overruled by appealing to the Federal court using the PLCCA rule, which is the law that grants the gun industry immunity from torts. But PLCCA specifically does not cover legal actions brought under negligent entrustment, so this case eventually headed back to state court.
Then Remington went bankrupt, and all that stuff had to be worked out. Then we have the Pandemic which has slowed down all civil actions in every state, so finally we get to where we are today – nine years after the 20-year old shot his way into the school and proceeded to kill 6 adults, 20 kids, and then shot himself to death.
Make no mistake about it – this civil action represents a fundamental test for the entire gun industry, a test the industry has never faced before. And the test facing the industry is important and perhaps precedent-setting because for the very first time, a legal action will turn on how the gun industry describes and markets its products which has never (read: never) come close to being true.
And by the way, for my friends in Gun-nut Nation who will now sit down and send me an email complaining that I am against gun ‘rights,’ save yourself the trouble because I won’t read what you say, and I won’t respond to the same crap again and again. As I have said hundreds of time, the 2nd Amendment is not a ‘right.’ It’s an amendment, okay?
Back in the 1980’s, the gun industry discovered that what had been its market – hunting and sport shooting – was dying on the vine. It was also a time when the GOP decided to focus its entire domestic agenda on crime. Willie Horton became a poster-child for promoting the idea that you weren’t safe in your home or in the street if you didn’t have a gun. And since most gun owners happen to be politically conservative and thus vote for the read team, the argument stuck.
The gun industry manufactured more than 1 million pistols for the very first time in 1988. The industry also began to ramp up the manufacture of assault rifles around the same time. Except the problem with the AR-15 was that it looked like, in fact, was an exact copy of the military gun, and was banned from civilian sales for ten years beginning in 1994.
When the assault rifle ban expired in all but a few Commie states, the gun industry invented the idea that the AR-15 wasn’t an ‘assault rifle,’ it was a ‘sporting’ gun. The kid who killed 26 adults and children at the Sandy Hook school was inside the building for five minutes or less. In that brief period of time, which included the time he used moving into three different classrooms, he fired more than 90 rounds.
That’s a sporting gun? That’s going to be used to bring home some venison for the Thanksgiving feast or shoot some high-flying mallards on their way from Canada to Miami Beach? Give me a friggin’ break.
The gun industry has been promoting totally cynical and make-believe narratives about its products for years. The good news is that the Sandy Hook lawsuit could force the industry to go back to being what it was and should become again, namely, an industry producing products that can be used in ways that do not (read: not) result in gun violence, either against a single individual or a classroom filled with kids.
Jul 30, 2021 @ 11:17:20
“As I have said hundreds of time, the 2nd Amendment is not a ‘right.’ It’s an amendment, okay?”
You should go to an NRA meeting and tell people that. That would surely be entertaining.
“That’s a sporting gun? That’s going to be used to bring home some venison for the Thanksgiving feast”
There are different kinds of sporting guns. Sure, an AR might not be the best choice for hunting, but it’s great for target shooting. I would think a gun ‘expert’ such as yourself would know this.
“The gun industry has been promoting totally cynical and make-believe narratives about its products for years.”
If the gun industry is so horrible, why are you a willing participant? You own a bunch of ‘bottom loading’ guns. Not only that, but you sold guns to many people over the years, likely making a handsome profit. You have also given and continue to give the NRA massive amounts of money. And yet you get on your blog and decry the alleged evils of the gun industry. Do you have some kind of guilt complex?
“The good news is that the Sandy Hook lawsuit could force the industry to go back to being what it was and should become again”
You’re antigun, so why should the gun industry care what you think? Smith and Wesson tried collaborating with the antigun extremest Bill Clinton 20 years ago. The NRA nearly destroyed them. Fortunately S&W quickly saw the error of their ways. I actually bought a very nice pistol from them a few years ago. It’s a bottom loader with no thumb safety that holds 17 rounds of ‘military grade’ ammo. And it’s threaded for a suppressor, you know like what bad guys use in movies- scary!
Jul 31, 2021 @ 08:51:08
A very nice comment but you didn’t respond to anything I said. I have not only appeared before pro-gun groups, but I appear before them and talk about the so-called gun ‘rights’ nonsense all the time. When was the last time you appeared before a gun-control group? You can label me as anti-gun all you want but the fact that I disagree with some of the things that the industry says about its products doesn’t make me anti-anything unless you believe that anti-gun means anyone who disagrees with you. And by the way, it also doesn’t matter whether the gun industry cares about what I say. Contributing a comment in which you use the phrase ‘anti-gun’ multiple times really moves the conversation forward.
Jul 31, 2021 @ 12:24:44
“A very nice comment but you didn’t respond to anything I said.”
Malarkey. I broke your post down point by point and responded. I just didn’t respond in a way that you agree with. You’re the one ignoring most of what I said.
“I have not only appeared before pro-gun groups, but I appear before them and talk about the so-called gun ‘rights’ nonsense all the time.”
I don’t see how that is relevant. So you go around telling pro gun groups that gun RIGHTS are nonsense, then? Or do you tell them something else?
“When was the last time you appeared before a gun-control group?”
Why would I appear before an antigun group? They probably wouldn’t want me there. Or they’d use lies and tricks to discredit me like what those “change the ref” idiots did to John Lott.
“You can label me as anti-gun all you want”
You choose to wear the antigun label. You just try to hide it by passing yourself off as a ‘gun guy.’ I’m not labeling you anything, just exposing what you really are.
“the fact that I disagree with some of the things that the industry says about its products doesn’t make me anti-anything”
You to ban and forcibly buy back many if not most bottom loading semiauto rifles and handguns. You made a website and everything. That’s pretty antigun.
“you believe that anti-gun means anyone who disagrees with you.”
I believe antigun means anyone who wants to ban and take away my guns. My M&P easily fits your definition of ‘killer handgun.’
“Contributing a comment in which you use the phrase ‘anti-gun’ multiple times really moves the conversation forward.”
Antigun people hate being called antigun.
Jul 30, 2021 @ 11:23:39
I’d be more critical of the lawsuit if not for the “Consider Your Man Card Reissued” sorts of advertisements that seem to beg for owning a military style gun (or any gun) for all the wrong reasons. That said, the rifle used at Sandy Hook was sold to a woman who legally bought it according to the laws of Connecticut and the United States. It was not negligently entrusted to the shooter but lawfully sold to an adult who played by all the rules. If anyone was negligent, it was Mom, letting Kiddo be able to get the rifle after executing his mother. By contrast, if someone shot my brother, they would have to drill open his safe as no one, including his big brother with multiple USG security clearances, has been given the combination. My brother has always been smart and careful.
I think settling was a mistake but I’m not Remington’s lawyers nor do I play them on TV.
The line between sport shooting and something else is blurry. My Springfield Armory Range Officer is a target version of the military M1911 but is basically identical in function. We have M1 Garand matches at the club. The line ain’t a bright, shining one. I suspect lawsuits will roll down like water and fear in the gun industry like a mighty stream. With apologies to Dr. King.
Jul 31, 2021 @ 08:57:35
With all due respect Khal, I don’t think you understand what the negligent entrustment laws says. You keep taking words out of context, like ‘rights’ and ‘negligent’ and use them in ways that sound good but have no application to legal statutes.
The whole point of the Man Card ad (which is an exhibit in the complaint, btw) was that Bushmaster created that ad precisely to make people believe that the gun was only dangerous when used against ‘threats.’ Which is why they want to settle because discovery would turn up hundreds of emails that would show Remington and Bushmaster being very aware of consumer resistance to military-style weapons (believe it or not) and trying to come up with advertising that would undercut that resistance.
Aug 02, 2021 @ 13:29:33
I mentioned the Man Card ad as it seems to me that sort of advertising makes Remington vulnerable to a lawsuit if the firearm in question ends up causing harm, i.e., “One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.”**
** https://www.viorstlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1301139/2020/07/Negligent-Entrustment-Final.pdf
I would have been a lot more careful in the advertising. Yes, I’m learning more about this. But I still disagree with you on the definition of “rights” but that’s not worth a battle on your web site.
Sincerely,
Khal
Jul 30, 2021 @ 15:48:55
It truly was a terrible event that happened that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School. And that day all started when Adam Lanza killed his mother with a Savage Mark II .22-caliber rifle, a bolt-action firearm. The very type of gun that many from “gun control nation” claim is okay to have.
Once gun control nation realize the .22 Long Rifle cartridge originated in the mid 1800’s and eventually made its way via J. Stevens Arms & Tool Company to Savage Arms and that the original company, Stevens, made training rifles and machineguns for the U.S. Military, the connection will have been made. The .22 Long Rifle has to be one of those military-grade cartridges that gun control nation hates so much.
‘Hell, yes, we’re going to take…’
Jul 31, 2021 @ 09:00:05
They used the 22-caliber for training, not for battle, okay? So you can’t say that it’s military grade at all. It isn’t. It’s training grade. The Army also had an adapter that when you put it in a Colt1911 pistol allowed you to use 22-caliber ammo. Again, it was for training, not for the field.
Jul 31, 2021 @ 10:18:06
Sorry, I thought the .22LR was widely used during both the Second World War and the Cold War. Mostly used in suppressed High Standard pistols used by the OSS and SOE on many of their missions. And I’ve heard that even today some of the Special Forces will use the .22 caliber. But I must be wrong.
Jul 31, 2021 @ 11:40:15
You’re right. But you can say the same thing about just about any ammo. After all, there are snipers in the Army who shoot Remington 700 riles that have been worked up to be sniper guns and they use long-range, magnum hunting ammo rounds too, the same calibers that I used when I went hunting antelope in West Texas and needed round that stayed pretty straight for 300 yards. Does that make the Remington 700 a ‘military’ gun? Of course not. This isn’t a debate about nomenclature. It’s about how we regulate small arms.
Are you aware of the fact that in order to import a gun into the United States for commercial resale the gun hs to first be approved by the ATF. The approval is based on whether it is a ‘sporting’ gun or not. And the definition of ‘sporting’ used by the ATF is whether or not the gun has safeties, what type of caliber it is, etc. If the gun is 22-caliber it isn’t inspected by the ATF because it automatically qualifies as a ‘sporting’ gun.