Untold Story Behind Remington’s Bankrupting, Precedent-Setting Lawsuit


America’s oldest gunmaker filed for bankruptcy last week as it seeks to reduce its massive debt. There is an untold story here. A major lawsuit by Sandy Hook victims’ families against the company is meant to put the company out of business. It won, it will set a very dangerous precedent.

The Untold Story

There are a couple reasons for Remington’s woes. One is President Trump won and people are buying fewer guns, but another reason is the lawsuits meant to break the company.

Remington is being sued for wrongful death by the families of victims in Sandy Hook, although the company had absolutely nothing to do with the horrific crime.

It is a precedent-setting lawsuit. If the litigants win, gun manufacturers will be held responsible for the crimes people commit with their product. If they don’t win, the company will possibly go out of business over the costs of the suit anyway. It’s a win-win for gun grabbers.

The concept behind the lawsuit is flawed. It is like suing Williams Sonoma for a woman killing her husband after hitting him over the head with one of their pots.

If this legal doctrine gains steam, particularly at the Federal appellate level, those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights could be in trouble. Gun companies found liable for senseless and unforeseeable tragedies could be litigated out of existence by lawsuit after lawsuit.

This case is meant to greatly weaken the rights and protections of gun makers with the ultimate goal of putting them out of business.

Protections in the Law Don’t Help

The company’s lawyers said they are protected by a 2005 federal immunity law that protects gun makers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products, according to a report by the Associated Press.

It doesn’t seem to matter. Remington couldn’t get the lawsuit thrown out. The judges are legislating from the bench.

While gun makers are free from liability in many cases, they are not if they knowingly transfer a gun to be used for criminal purposes or if they break the law.

If the product is defective they can be sued. That is the case in another suit against Remington. It was never proven that the guns were defective but the company had to settle due to costs.

Remington Is a Good Start in Destroying Gun Makers

Founded in 1816, Remington is one of the oldest and best-known gun makers in the world. It’s owned by Cerberus Capital Management, which plans to shed ownership once the bankruptcy is complete.

They tried to sell it after Sandy Hook but couldn’t find a buyer. Twenty-six people died in the terrible Sandy Hook massacre, including many small children.

Remington is headquartered in North Carolina. It makes a variety of handguns, shotguns, and rifles at its sprawling 19th-century factory in Ilion, N.Y.

Its products include the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that was used in the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The company has been sued by family members of the Sandy Hook victims.

The AR is being called a weapon of war but it clearly isn’t.

Toppling the oldest gun company is a great start for the gun grabbers.

The victims are blaming the gun company for the crime committed by an insane youth whose mother allowed him illegal access to guns. The reason for the lawsuit is to put gun manufacturers out of business. That is the story being ignored.

The company has reached a deal to give lenders ownership over the firearms maker, Bloomberg reported. Remington will keep on making guns as they work through the debt under bankruptcy protection.

Colt Holding Co. also went into bankruptcy in 2015.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Hawkins
Jim Hawkins
5 years ago

Liability laws are designed to produce liable lawsuits that make lyin’ lawyers on both sides richer and richer….by the minute.

5 years ago

The fault of everyone’s death could be placed on their parents. Had they never been born, they would never die.

5 years ago

Sara – And if this suit didn’t set a precedent, the one you mentioned about the governments plans to sue drug companies would be used to go after guns.

Why do I think that’s a hidden purpose in going after drug companies? ( Not Trump, but who thought of it.)