Smith & Wesson sued over advertising by Highland Park victims

Gunmaker Smith & Wesson is among those named in new lawsuits filed by the legal arms of Everytown for Gun Safety and Brady (along with several other law firms) on behalf of some of the victims and family members of those killed in the July 4th shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, along with the shooter himself, his father, and the Illinois gun store that sold the Smith & Wesson rifle to the suspect.

The lawsuit accuses Smith & Wesson of using its advertising and marketing to target “troubled” young men like the 21-year old accused of the attack on the Independence Day parade in the Chicago suburb, though the evidence provided by the gun control groups is pretty uncompelling.

This is the same bullshit used to get around the PLCAA by the Sandy Hook parents.

This is the new frontier of lawfare against gun companies.

It doesn’t matter what the shooters motivation actually was or what the ad actually said, they will judge shop until they find a judge who will allow this bullshit to proceed.

Because Remington settled it opened the door to this.

Now everyone will pay the price.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

5 thoughts on “I said the Remington Sandy Hood settlement was a bad idea”
  1. S&W might fight this one, hard. (I hope)
    Not sure if I have the full story correct, but if I remember…
    Remington was in bankruptcy, and basically run by the banks at that point. It was run by people who wanted to recover as much debt as they could, not people who gave a crap about long term. Not only that, it was Bushmaster, not Remington itself that was sued, and again… bankers could care less about closing down a subsidiary if needed.
    In other words, settle was the word, not fight.
    S&W has a different management at this point. I am cautiously optimistic.

  2. Remington had nothing to do with the ad campaign that Bushmaster ran which was the “cause” of the lawsuit. Remington purchased Bushmaster after the asshole’s mother bought the rifle.

    The first suits were tossed because of the PLCAA. Then they changed the suit to be false/misleading/bad advertising caused the death of all of those children. They lost, multiple times in CT courts. Finally it reached the CT Supreme Court where they ruled that they didn’t think it would win but the suit should have its day in court.

    Remington appealed to SCOTUS which denied Cert.

    The case was proceeding and it was costing Remington.

    All of those fees were being paid by Remington’s insurance carriers.

    Remington declared bankruptcy and sold off all of their assets. What remained was the actual Remington name and this huge court case. The insurance carriers settled for a large amount and the bankruptcy completed.

    The “gun people” of Remington were not involved with that settlement. They were all long gone.

    We know this was a huge loss. You can see it in the number of laws that have now been structured precisely to allow this sort of lawsuit. “Some dude kills your son. That dude could have seen an ad. Your ad could appeal to murdering scum. Therefore you are able to sue because the “ad” is what killed your son.”

  3. My understanding is as CMBTTek’s (eta: and Therefore’s), Remington was no longer a functioning entity at that time, and it was their insurers who ultimately made the call to settle. In that case, it’s simply a dry calculation for the insurer: a guaranteed loss of $X today, or after spending time and money on litigation, have a probability of paying out many times $X.
    The situation, to me, seems a little different given there’s a functioning company in the process. I am especially hopeful given the S&W CEO’s response to the recent Congressional inquisitional process, ah, hearings.

    1. You’re all commenting (accurately) in the fact that the Remington that settled was different than Rem Arms the gun company and that this was an issue of the insurance companies… blah blah blah.

      I don’t care.

      You are thinking like rational people interested in facts.

      You have to think like the enemy.

      Remington settled. Precedent is set. The tactic of going around the PLCAA by suing over advertising is established. This will be abused.

      I worked as an engineering consultant in litigation. The general aviation industry never settles, ever, for the explicit reason on not wanting to invite more lawsuits.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.