Jump to content

Soto v. Bushmaster - Part 2


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Part 1 is archived.

 

CNN

Gun manufacturer Remington has offered nearly $33 million to nine families of victims killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in a proposed lawsuit settlement, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

...

In a statement, the lawyers for the victims' families say in part they will "consider their next steps."

...

Lawyers for the plaintiff contended that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.

...

[Plaintiffs' attorney Josh] Koskoff credited two insurance companies that once did business with Remington for realizing that promoting the use of AR-15-style rifles "as weapons of war to civilians is indefensible."

So Remington isn't caving. (It's in bankruptcy, anyway.) Remington's insurance companies are caving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contacted Remington how, a psychic?


Bankruptcy is over Remington Arms as a company no longer exists.


Let me know I'd like to contact them myself I have some unresolved legal questions i'd like answers to.


Who owns the rights to all the publications?



The settlements were offered by Ironshore and James River, two of Remington's insurers.


I guess saying Remington Arms makes a better headlines



p.s. Ironshore is owned by Liberty Mutual.


Edited by SiliconSorcerer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Bankruptcy is over Remington Arms as a company no longer exists. ...

... Who owns the rights to all the publications? ...

All of Remington's non-monetary assets were sold (or are still in the process of being sold) and all its employees were terminated, so the company is defunct, but the company itself still exists, even if only on paper. It will probably continue in a zombie-like state until all lawsuits have been settled and whatever monetary assets are divided up among the creditors. One of the lawsuits is an action by the former employees who are suing for their severance and accrued vacation, which Remington announced it wasn't going to pay when it fired them.

 

I suspect that "the rights to all the publications" would have been owned by Remington Outdoors, rather than by Remington Arms, and would be among those assets sold. I suppose it's possible to find the buyer among the legal documents approving the various sales (the most recent of them dated 12 July 2021, as of this post).

 

In other cases, when a bankrupt (non-media) company's assets were sold, the rights to publications, articles, etc., were typically bundled with something else, and the entity who bought the rights didn't even know it now owned them.

 

Otherwise, if you're really that interested in finding out who bought what, you could probably try contacting Remington's bankruptcy attorneys.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all those people that lost their sources of income, businesses, or other things related to COVID should be able to sue Pritzker or Illinois for shutting down businesses and causing the losses. He gave the order to IDPH.

 

All the FFL’s in Illinois that closed down due to the new Illinois regulations, should be able to sue the state of Illinois for business losses?

I would think this also means that the people/company who write automobile self driving software are now liable for accidents as a result of the owners actions?


Edited by mab22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all those people that lost their sources of income, businesses, or other things related to COVID should be able to sue Pritzker or Illinois for shutting down businesses and causing the losses. He gave the order to IDPH.

 

All the FFL’s in Illinois that closed down due to the new Illinois regulations, should be able to sue the state of Illinois for business losses?

 

I would think this also means that the people/company who write automobile self driving software are now liable for accidents as a result of the owners actions?

This lawsuit, although brought by an association of Sandyhook parents, wasn't about responsibility for the shooting or for the manufacture of the firearm involved. It was a suit about the advertising of the firearm involved. The ads for the firearm stated (or strongly implied) that ordinary people would become soldiers just by buying that particular firearm.

 

Any reasonable person should recognize the ads as ridiculous marketing hype, but there was nothing about them to indicate that Remington wasn't completely serious.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... Bankruptcy is over Remington Arms as a company no longer exists. ...

... Who owns the rights to all the publications? ...

All of Remington's non-monetary assets were sold (or are still in the process of being sold) and all its employees were terminated, so the company is defunct, but the company itself still exists, even if only on paper. It will probably continue in a zombie-like state until all lawsuits have been settled and whatever monetary assets are divided up among the creditors. One of the lawsuits is an action by the former employees who are suing for their severance and accrued vacation, which Remington announced it wasn't going to pay when it fired them.

 

I suspect that "the rights to all the publications" would have been owned by Remington Outdoors, rather than by Remington Arms, and would be among those assets sold. I suppose it's possible to find the buyer among the legal documents approving the various sales (the most recent of them dated 12 July 2021, as of this post).

 

In other cases, when a bankrupt (non-media) company's assets were sold, the rights to publications, articles, etc., were typically bundled with something else, and the entity who bought the rights didn't even know it now owned them.

 

Otherwise, if you're really that interested in finding out who bought what, you could probably try contacting Remington's bankruptcy attorneys.

 

Remington's bankruptcy attorneys. - tried unsuccessfully. I don't think they are fielding any questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.

So if its deceptive to market it as a combat weapon, what does that mean for all the people who keep calling it a military-grade weapon of war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.

So if its deceptive to market it as a combat weapon, what does that mean for all the people who keep calling it a military-grade weapon of war?

 

It would have been interesting to have an anti-2A litigant argue in court and on the record that AR-15s are most definitely not weapons of war to have precedent established so. Unfortunately, if the case settles out of court, that will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.

 

So if its deceptive to market it as a combat weapon, what does that mean for all the people who keep calling it a military-grade weapon of war?

 

Was thinking the same thing. This appears to be an admission that the AR platform is NOT a weapon of war r suitable for combat - in deference to the many claims of such by the anti-gun crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...