I read Miguel’s post:
Dear Remington: You can never satisfy them by conceding. Prepared to be reamed again.
And he very well may be right.
My comment to his post was: Remington paid the Dane geld, now they will never get rid of the Dane.
But then I remembered Gendron wrote about the Bushmaster in his Manifesto.
Here is some selected text on the subject:
I’m still taking the shooter’s manifesto at face value.
The shooter makes it crystal clear that he selected a pre-Remington Bushmaster rifle, and how much he hates Remington/Freedom Group Bushmaster rifles and thinks they are shit-tier rifles.
He said he chose the worse rifle for the job and it was the “cucked” version that was ban-compliant.
He also acknowledged that his selection was specifically to bait the media.
The Sandy Hook lawsuit was a travesty of justice.
To get around the PLCAA, the suit went after Bushmaster’s advertising.
They argued that Bushmaster advertised its rifle in such a way as to encourage killing with the tactical “assaultive” character of the rifle.
Considering that Lanza did not buy his rifle, but stole it from his mother after murdering her, the entirety of the argument was fallacious.
I am not a lawyer, so this this just my opinion, but:
Rem Arms/Bushmaster that exists today is two companies removed from the Bushmaster that made the rifle used by Gendron.
Gendron was explicit in not selecting a Remington/Rem Arms Bushmaster because of how bad they were.
He explicitly stated that he hated that he bought a “cucked” ban complaint rifle and had to modify it illegally to be acceptable.
So if Josh Kosoff tries and piggybacks this lawsuit on his Sandy Hook lawsuit, which is why he was consulted, I think Remington/Rem Arms has argument they their rifle was specifically not selected because the shooter hated it for its less than adequate performance, negating the entire argument made against Bushmaster in the Sandy Hook suit.
I also think that Bushmaster might have a counter suit potential against the media. The argument being that the media’s vilification of Bushmaster has turned their brand into something akin to an attractive nuisance. That people with ill intent will seek out Bushmaster rifles and do harm with them to bait the media.
It’s like the streakers at professional sports games. When the cameras followed the streakers and the commentators talked about them they would have more streakers.
Then sports networks changed and cut to commercial as soon as a streaker took the field and never talked about them, it stopped.
The incessant coverage of mass shooters and the model and/or brand that they used creates the same phenomenon. Bad people will model their actions to maximize media coverage.
The media is more liable for this than the gun makers are.
Now I know the comments in this post are going to be full of “everything you say is irrelevant because New York is just as Leftist as Connecticut and the doesn’t matter anymore because the Left will bend and break every law they can to accomplish their goals.”
And cynical me agrees with but, but I have to hold out some hope that the law will prevail.
We’ll have to see how this goes but the shooter’s own manifesto should be enough to automatically dismiss any lawsuit against Remington/Rem Arms if they choose to fight it.
IANAL warning in full effect, but I would not be surprised if this goes forward to a hearing, if not a trial. The Brandon admin wants to see PLCAA disappear, ASAP.
.
However, the manifesto is pretty damning that the manufacturer had nothing to do with this at all. In fact, if the manifesto is valid, it is pretty obvious the shooter knowingly sidestepped the law, and that “should” absolve Remington/Bushmaster, but I bet the judge assigned will forbid using the manifesto in the trial for some reason.
.
Remington and the rest of the gun industry better lawyer up.
Further thought.
.
The big test, in my opinion, is that manifesto. If the judge forbids it from use, it will ensure the PLCAA is on the table. (Which is what the leftists want.) Even if the case is eventually won by Remington, as soon as it goes to court, the PLCAA is on life support. (Again, IANAL)
.
If this world followed any kind of reality, the case would never see the light of day in front of a judge, even for a hearing. It would be summarily dismissed, with prejudice because of the PLCAA. No judge that deserves the position would allow it into court.
.
Additional thought.
.
If the case becomes a second “the advertising made me do it.” situation, the manifesto is again the big test. Judge allows it as evidence, and Remington wins. Judge denies its introduction, and it is a bold faced attempt to sue the gun companies out of business.
If the manifesto is disallowed, that would be a giant cause for appeal if it comes to that.
In my opinion (for the nothing that is worth), the only valid reason for disallowing the manifesto is if it can be demonstrated to be false. Not the shooter’s work. (Or not compiled by the shooter) Any other reason is proof this is a setup.
On this, the law and facts don’t matter. Only the judge matters. The Progs need judgements/settlements to justify their disarmament aims. Compton, California is the model.
.
In Compton, the new Hispanic population ( and their gangs) drove the ghetto gang-bangers out of town. If the suburban and rural “Whites” are willing and able to defend themselves and their families from the ghetto “refugees”, the eviction may not work, That will deny grift to the politicals and profit to the property owners.
.
The “White”, but (self identified) Leftist Authoritarian dipsh*t in Buffalo is just window dressing for disarming the future victims.
PLCAA????? I HATE all this abrieviations and such
Speak F’in English…..
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
.
A law written to stop lawfare from driving gun manufacturers/dealers out of business via frivolous lawsuits.
*me who carries a Diamondback*
Guess I’ll die.
Stop giving the lunatic attention.
One: Stop giving this idiot attention
Two: There is no one to sue, the company that made the firearm in question no longer exists
Three: Remington never settled, their insurers who inherited their liabilities
IANAL, but it seems to me that the Sandy Hook lawsuit should set some precedent, and this potential lawsuit flies directly against it.
–
The courts cannot rightly find that a company can be liable for a rifle’s misuse if criminals are attracted by its advertising and reputation, and then follow that up with a company being liable for a rifle’s misuse if criminals were specifically NOT attracted by its advertising and reputation.
–
Then again, the last lawsuit ended with insurers inheriting liability and not any actual settlement or verdict, so I suppose there’s no precedent there. Still, a good and decent judge will make the plaintiffs clearly explain the new attack angle and how they hope to prevail in light of the previous contra-indicating one.
Do you have a link to the ‘manifesto’? I keep reading contrasting reports about what it says. The fact that it was so quickly and effectively removed from the internet and search engines make me suspicious of any claims about what it said. I am left with the feeling it did not support the media’s narrative so they felt it had to be buried.
Note: I am not doubting your reporting but always prefer to have access to source documents.
I can say having spent plenty of time in the hacker known as 4chans website myself, the way he writes is exactly who people write there. I’m inclined to believe everything he has written at face value at this point too. It seems almost too good to be true/hits all the talking points, but this is how people talk there and waregame things.