FUNshoot News - Remington settlement
A newsletter for the modern pafisto.
You've likely heard about Remington Arms settling at $73 million because a criminal misused one of their products available for legal sale.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits that arise out of the criminal misuse of a weapon. This was lobbied for and passed because numerous anti-freedom advocates openly stated that because they couldn't legally ban certain firearms they would instead seek to push law abiding firearm companies out of business with an endless stream of nuisance lawsuits.
Despite this law, the Sandy Hook families argued that their lawsuit fell under an exception to this federal immunity. The exception allows gun violence victims to sue a manufacturer who “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm. The families claimed that Remington Arms “marketed, advertised and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.” They said that this marketing was unethical and therefore violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, which they argued is a state statute applicable to the marketing of a firearm.
The Connecticut high court agreed and, importantly, interpreted the term “applicable” broadly. That is, the court said that a relevant statute only had to be “capable of being applied” to gun sales, not that the law needed to be specifically about firearms, as other courts had held.
Since many states have similar unfair trade practices laws this could be used for claims elsewhere. Given the Remington precedent, crime victims could similarly allege that a gun manufacturer’s aggressive marketing of combat-style weapons violates a state statute – like an unfair trade practice law – that is applicable to the sale or marketing of a firearm.
What’s more, Remington’s reasons for agreeing to settle may have more to do with the company’s struggle to reemerge from bankruptcy than a newfound willingness among gun-makers to settle claims, especially after the RemArms and Remington Ammunition split.
My take: Are we really to believe that a mother's ownership of a rifle and her son's criminal actions with it was due to military-themed advertising? It seems a stretch that the nature of an advertisement renders protection under a lawful commerce act null and void. Like it or not, that was the argument. I find this ridiculous and NSSF has stated that the settlement was made by the insurance company and that Remington could have won in court.
Regardless, perhaps gun companies would be better served by using more winning competitive shooters and promoting gun owners to be more like that instead? Here's one:
Mammoth Sniper Challenge « Army Reserve Marksman The 2022 Mammoth Sniper Challenge, hosted at Fort Gordon, GA has earned a reputation as “the toughest civilian sniper competition in the country.” This year, 104 teams signed up to compete, but only 51 finished. Over the course of three days, teams rucked over 30 miles while carrying everything they needed for the competition. Rucks…