Top Menu

The Way Forward For Remington

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've undoubtedly heard about Remington Arms getting sued by families of the Sandy Hook Victims. In fact, I've written at length about it just this year in this article. In that article I discuss the lengths to which a company will go in its marketing to sell a product based on an illusion.

That illusion often sells the poor sap who spends money on the product the illusion that he or she will become something special like a football player, or a model, or irresistible to members of the opposite sex.

I made the argument that Remington was just trying to sell products as any other company does. There was no ill-intent there. They weren't trying to break any laws, just feed the families they employ.

Remington appealed the Supreme Court about a lower court's decision to allow the Sandy Hook families to sue them, and many of us thought that this would get struck down. I have to admit that I was among those who thought it would.

I was wrong.

The Supreme Court will not hear Remington's appeal and will have to move forward in the lower Connecticut court, which is really not a good thing. This will open up the doors for companies of all types to get sued for the way said company marketed something.

Previously, a gun company would have been protected under the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which makes sense. After all, a manufacturer of anything has absolutely zero control over how a customer will use their products.

So, I promised you a way forward for Remington, and I'm not about to bow out of the conversation early. The way forward for them is to rely heavily on the Second Amendment and its original interpretation.

The families of the victims are going after Remington based on how they marketed their Bushmaster AR-15s, with them being marketed as such:

Consider your man card reissued.

Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.

Several of the sources I read before deciding to write this article said something like this: … had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings. They then point out that Connecticut's consumer protection law forbids advertising that promotes violent, criminal behavior.

Remington never set out to market violence to people. No company in their right mind will market criminal behavior to people. That's not what we law abiding gun owners and companies have in mind when we do anything.

That would be suicide for anyone or any company who did market their products in that way.

Again, we've already covered the marketing aspect of this and why companies do marketing the way they do. They all do this to some degree, whether it's a car speeding through the mountains, or the coolest man on earth drinking a beer — it doesn't matter. That linked to article above shows more examples if you don't believe me.

The way forward for Remington and Bushmaster is the Second Amendment as it was originally intended to be interpreted.

It was originally meant for any and all people (mostly men of fighting age) to be armed for the security of our nation.

The Second Amendment reads:

The experts may disagree with me on this one, but I think going with any other direction will have Remington's booty handed back to them on a silver platter. More than one entity wants to make an example out of them as a company, and it doesn't seem like anything else matters but that example, at this point.

However, I believe it will be very difficult for any court to argue against the right of the people as outlined in the Constitution. To say that they were marketing towards militia aged men just makes sense. Then again, it may open up a different can of worms, for the future.

I don't see another way forward for Remington, but I'm not a lawyer either. I can say, however, that they were hoping that the Supreme Court would hear their appeal with a couple more seemingly pro-gun justices sitting there.

The simple fact that they didn't hear the appeal concerns me, but that can be a topic for a different day.

Leave your thoughts on this in the comments below.


13 Responses to The Way Forward For Remington

  1. Glenn Williams November 13, 2019 at 2:42 pm #

    It is rediculous to allow this and still allow the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and automobiles. All kill exponentially greater than all the firearms in the United States put together. Swimming pools, and give gallon buckets with be next by this logic.
    If you want to really go after a group of killers, go after the department of Justice who are forcing chronic pain patients to suicide by denying them meds.

    • Robert Conrad November 14, 2019 at 10:29 am #

      Great analysis with the pain meds! I have spinal stenosis, had back surgery, spinal injections, all to deal with my pain. Now a 50 mg pill of Tramadol taken once a day is controlled by the government and doctors are afraid to give more in fear they my lose their license. I’m 72 and hate to see life in another 10 years.

  2. Tom November 13, 2019 at 3:03 pm #

    Time for Remington go leave the demonic state of Connecticut. That #1 second I don’t know what part of will not infringe the govt thinks it can.

    • Joe November 14, 2019 at 6:51 am #

      They did leave CT. I was transferred to Lonoke, AR in 1970 and the Bridgeport plant was closed in 1975. CT owes Remington a lot going back to WWI. They not only employed thousand of people over the years but also helped us win wars. CT is now a far left state and the best thing I did was get out of there.

  3. R. W. Schoettler November 13, 2019 at 6:22 pm #

    Okay, a number of issues come up here. First, the basic argument against Remington has been re-shaped from what the original Complaint alleged…now the argument is that Remington advertised their “assault rifle” as a) a “manly” thing, b) something that would be good for defense against attackers, c) capable of shooting many people at the same time”. Please don’t argue they didn’t say that, the presentation to a jury (in a jury trial) would be that the idea, the implication was that this rifle was good for shooting a lot of people quickly and accurately. The reality is that such an idea is absolutely true.

    Now consider this; hunters, if they do their job right, pull the trigger once. The animal hunted drops on the spot and then the real work begins cleaning the dead animal. So, if a hunter is hunting why would he/she require a rifle capable of shooting 10 or more times in quick succession? No such need so the ONLY reason for a large capacity magazine (see California laws) and a rapid-firing gun would be to shoot people.

    One of the problem is that we, the gun owners, have allowed the media to continue using the term “assault rifle”. This is really absurd since nobody (except real wakoes) buys the weapon to “assault” anybody or anything. This type of weapon is purchased because it is fun to shoot, is accurate, can be used to punch a lot of holes in a lot of paper (or tin cans or steel plates or whatever) and can also be used as a home defense weapon. BUT NOBODY BUYS THE WEAPON TO ASSAULT ANYBODY OR ANYTHING. So stop using the term and correct anyone who does…it is a defensive rifle, a plinking rifle, a target and competition rifle, not an assault rifle.

    Next, we can all agree that anyone who decides to shoot a lot of innocent people has more than a few loose screws in their makeup. They are nuts, by any definition of the word “crazy”. And yes, crazy people who cause harm to others have chosen, over the years, ropes, swords, knives, baseball bats, rocks, stones, spears and anything else that will cause harm to another. Itr should bel noted, parenthetically at this point, that more people are killed in the USA each year by clubs and sticks and stones and knives than by rifles…even including every so-called mass shooting. Handguns are another thing.

    I have been a trial attorney for many years during which time I have tried many civil jury trials. The technique used by most attorneys is to seek a way to best dramatize for the jury whatever position is is you are representing. Here we have Remington, a company that has produced firearms for the US military services for a couple hundred years, guns for law enforcement, guns for hunters and target shooters. This is Remington’s market, not the crazies out there but the responsible citizens who enjoy target shooting, hunting and for the military who are charged with the defense of this country. We can’t blame automobiles for the ease with which people can be killed by them and shouldn’t be blaming guns for the people who can be killed by them. Swimming pools cause more deaths each year than rifles. Knives kill more.

    Let’s look at all advertising..which seems to present one of two main themes to the buying public. One is to show beautiful people using al product…with the implication that if you purchase this product you, too, will be a “beautiful person”. The other popular theme is fear. If you don’t purchase this product your life will be somehow less, all the way to death.

    Both approaches can be used in the same advertising. The bottom line, however, is that the basic premise, that by purchasing a particular product you life will somehow be enhanced or protected…is usually an absurd idea.

    In a jury trial both sides appeal to fundamental principles in daily life and try to demonstrate how their particular view of the universe will ultimately save mankind from the horrors of the opposition’s viewpoint. Reality has nothing to do with it. If you look carefully at what the gun-control lobby is saying it is that if we were to either totally eliminate all publicly owned guns or at the very least severely restrict their number/use/proliferation…this country would be “saved”. Nobody says “saved” from what, only that the evils of mass shootings (an this is really an evil thing) and random killings (also not very nice) and gang shootings and suicides would ver virtually eliminated.

    Well, reality, and history, tell us that bad things happen. There are nut cases out there who decide to do bad things. In this world today are people who preach that the citizens of the United States should be killed, that those who don’t believe in a particular religious view should be killed. Not just converted but actually killed. There are also people in our own country who have made the choice (and continue to make such choices) to ignore the law, to take from others without the consent of others. And in many cases, most of these people who decide to take from others do so by use of force.

    Protection by law enforcement is not merely a sometime thing…it is not readily available in many cases. So it is up to the individual to protect himself/herself and their family and possessions. It should not be forgotten, the old adage “God made all people, Samuel Colt made them equal”.

    Sorry for the long rant but wanted to get it off my chest.

    • Roger D. Dempsey November 14, 2019 at 3:09 pm #

      I agree with your long rant and hope the weigh is lifted from your chest. I don’t believe that the average, America loving citizen needs to be sold on the why, or how they need to protect themselves. It is the political, liberal and America hating individual that wants to unarm us.
      I read a FB post today that said, the reason the Washington swamp want to take our guns is because that want to do something that they know we will want to shoot them for.

  4. Gerald Quinn November 13, 2019 at 7:54 pm #

    Self-defense is an inalienable right and supported by the Heller case. Marketing a firearm for use in lawful self-defense is proper. The anti-gunners are going to bankrupt Remington with legal expenses. This case may eventually end up at the Supreme Court, where Remington will win. Power Courts should have turpentine case out but they didn’t.

  5. Joe November 13, 2019 at 8:11 pm #

    Cars kill more people than guns each year so why don’t we outlaw cars???!!!

  6. Charles November 13, 2019 at 8:21 pm #

    This is going lead to thousands of frivolous suits against gun manufacturers that could eventually lead to many closing their doors. At best it will probably lead to many manufacturers shutting down production of the AR-15. Since the court allowed this to go forward and businesses to be sued because of advertising, I’m looking for an attorney to handle a suit for me. I wan to sue McDonalds. They always advertise how great their food is and target people who are busy and in a hurry. My suit will suggest that that type of advertising lead to my heart disease. I wrecked my sports car one time because Chevy advertised how fast the Corvette was. There is no end now that the Supreme Court has opened this door. Ammo will also get hit for advertising how deadly their self defense ammo is.

  7. Dlee November 13, 2019 at 10:08 pm #

    Our recently improved “conservative” Supreme Court has let us down temporarily. The merits of the case itself are not very strong. The Court simply decided not to involve itself in a 2A matter at this time. Instead, allowing the lower court to hear and rule on the case on it’s merits or lack thereof. However, there are the protection laws on the books for manufacturing companies. So… we know that the lower court will most likely rule against Remington on case merit steeped in anti 2A hype. So rest assured… There WILL be an appeal. This is the case that the court will hear. Even though the court could have stopped this process now, they instead appear to be waiting to hear the appeal so that they can hopefully rule on some long standing, often liberal judge abused 2A findings and issues. It will cost Remington and 2A supporters plenty f money, but it is possible that in the long run we 2A fans will get some positive rulings in a year or two…..Keep the faith. There are some smart Justices on the Court and they are thinking that Trump will most likely add another 1, 2 or more conservative, Constitutional Judges to the Court during his terms, assuring a solid long term strengthening of the 2A freedoms for patriotic Americans.

  8. Joe November 14, 2019 at 6:56 am #

    Opps, it was closed in 1985 when the rimfire manufacturing was moved to AR.

  9. J GIbbons November 14, 2019 at 7:07 am #

    In a sane world, the case against Remington should be monumentally difficult to prove. Regardless of their advertising, the Sandy Hook shooter didn’t buy the Bushmaster. His mother did, and legally at that. It’s pretty ridiculous to argue that he chose to kill his mother and steal her Bushmaster because of an advertisement.

    Of course, we aren’t living in a sane world.

  10. Albert November 16, 2019 at 7:35 am #

    All your arguments are BS; NO ONE CARES. Unless you live under a rock in the middle of ‘last Yak Outer Mongolia’, you have to start believing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is corrupt. Oh, and you have a choice in 2020; Live Free or under the Democrat Party Boot. Pretty clear choice; AND, a ‘stay at home’ is a vote for the oppressors.

Leave a Reply