Report: After pandering, Remington may face lawsuit for Buffalo mass shooting following $73M Sandy Hook settlement

Share:

This article contains editorial content by a staff writer for Law Enforcement Today

––

Should Ford Motor Co. be held liable for the Waukesha, Wisconsin, Christmas parade massacre? When Darrell Edward Brooks Jr. slid behind the wheel of his red 2010 Ford Escape, to allegedly mow down as many old, white people as possible, was it the vehicle or the man operating it that was the problem?

 

Brooks, 39, a black man who has an avowed hatred of whites, has been charged with killing six people and injuring 62 more on Nov. 21, 2021, when his SUV crashed through barricades and was video recorded running over participants and observers at the annual Christmas parade. He faces six counts of first-degree intentional homicide along with 77 other charges.

Reasonable people would say Brooks, and not the car’s manufacturer, should be held responsible for the horrific events of that day.

But unreasonable people, harboring an agenda, are pushing for gun manufacturers to be held responsible for what disturbed people do with their products, which are — currently — legally made and sold in this country.

 

They scored a huge victory when gun manufacturer Remington, which had designed the particular AR-15 rifle that Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza used to kill 26 children and teachers in Connecticut in 2012, agreed on Feb. 15 to pay a $73 million settlement to victims’ families.

Fresh from that victory, at least one lawyer may pursue a lawsuit against Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gunmakers, for the racially motivated May 14 mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store.

Payton Gendron, 18, is accused of driving from his home in Conklin, New York, to the Top’s Friendly Market grocery store about three hours away, where he targeted black shoppers. He is charged with killing 10 people and wounding three others. His alleged actions are being investigated by the FBI as racially motivated extremist violence.

Remington Arms Co., founded in 1816, filed for bankruptcy in 2020 and its assets were sold off to seven firms. The new owners of the revived gunmaker, Remington Outdoor Co., announced on Nov. 8, 2021, that it would move its global headquarters from Ilion, New York, to LaGrange, Georgia.

The company made the decision after then-N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed that  incomprehensible legislation holding gun manufacturers liable for what people do with their products.

In an interview with Utica, N.Y., television station WKTV, Remington Outdoor CEO Ken D’Arcy called the legislation poorly thought out. D’Arcy said:

“The idea this legislation will curtail crime is absurd.”

But, according to a story produced by WFMY News2:

“The family of a Buffalo shooting victim may sue major gun manufacturer Remington, whose headquarters are expected to move to LaGrange, Georgia within four years.

“The family has hired two lawyers who are investigating a potential lawsuit. One of them believed the AR-15-style weapon allegedly used in the massacre is designed for military and war, and he believes Remington should have taken more steps to make sure it didn’t end up in the wrong hands.

 

“As lawyers build a case, funerals began this week for the 10 victims killed in what police call a racially-motivated attack. An Atlanta-area attorney said the family may have a case, but it will likely be difficult to prove.

“Should this type of weapon be easily available to the common consumer? That is a legitimate debate,” Atlanta lawyer Jeff Shiver said.

“The killer allegedly used a Remington Bushmaster in the shooting, which is a semi-automatic rifle. The family of victim Andre Mackneil has hired lawyers to help seek justice for his death.”

There are many people and organizations that could be blamed for allowing the attack, such as the FBI, which was aware of Gendron’s recent threats.

The roots of the mass-shooter phenomenon likely reside in the mental health issues of the shooters themselves. This isn’t an industry-created action. No gunmaker wants its name associated with a crazed killer of innocents.

In Lanza’s case, his mother, whom he murdered, gave her mentally ill son access to her firearms.

Then there is a federal government that on one hand acknowledges this country is deep in a mental health crisis but on the other hand has abandoned the concept of mental institutions and prefers to release mentally ill criminals onto the streets.

And yes, you can blame the nation’s top Democrats, who regularily bang the drum that there is a white supremacist behind every smiling face, stoking hate among some minority Americans and a counter resentment among some white Americans.

But blaming the manufacturer is relatively easy and potentially very profitable, while serving to strangle an industry that is regularly and vocally targeted by the Democratic Party.

According to the Sandy Hook lawsuit, Remington’s marketing tactics violated Connecticut’s unfair trade law, and that did them in. There is zero indication that Remington broke any laws prompting Gendron’s alleged attack, so what would be the basis for a lawsuit?

https://fundourpolice.com/

Alert: Liberal district attorneys backing Mexico lawsuit to take down US gun manufacturers

February 5, 2022

LOS ANGELES, CA – Progressive district attorneys in California are not only backing the Mexico-based lawsuit against gun manufacturers, but they are also encouraging the federal government to allow it.

Mexico is currently suing United States gun manufacturers for deaths caused in their country by guns made here.

Embattled San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin weighed in on the topic:

“We must hold these gun manufacturers accountable for the devastating violence and harm they are inflicting on our communities…[U.S. gun manufacturers] send guns to Mexico, where transnational drug cartels use them to inflict violence on both sides of the border.

These gun manufacturers are empowering the drug traffickers flooding our streets with fentanyl and methamphetamines.”

The actual lawsuit was filed in August of 2021 in the District Court of Massachusetts which maintained that United States gun manufacturers were somehow culpable for trafficking guns in their country.

Mexico contends that by doing so, the gun manufacturers are bypassing their county’s strict gun laws.

Along with the progressive District Attorneys, thirteen other states as well as two Latin American countries have joined the push.

The two countries that have joined are Antigua and Belize, which filed separate briefs urging a federal judge to move forward with Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against several companies, including Smith & Wesson, Ruger & Co.

Mexico believes that United States gun makers should be held responsible for the guns that make it into the hands of the drug cartels. Part of the brief reads:

“Manufacturers should be liable for designing and marketing weapons knowing they will end up in the hands of Mexican cartels and subsequently funneled back into U.S. cities, along with vast quantities of drugs.”

Mexico contents that over 500,000 firearms are illegally trafficked into their country from the United States each year and 68 percent of those are made by the manufacturers named in the federal lawsuit.

Yet Mexico and the other countries joining in have to define explicitly how the United States company has enabled the illegal deeds done when members of drug cartels come across their weapons.

The gun manufacturers are arguing that the lawsuit needs to be dismissed because Mexico cannot establish that the crimes committed with their guns are their fault.

They also note that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects gun makers from lawsuits in which the companies are not held liable if the products they produce are not used properly.

Ellen Leonida, who is a partner at Braun Hagey & Borden LLP, represents the coalition of district attorneys which released a statement on the lawsuit:

“These are real-life consequences of gun manufacturers producing guns that they know will end up in the hands of cartels – and the reason that the district attorneys support Mexico in its efforts to hold the gun manufacturers accountable.

“District attorneys across the United States are seeing their communities devastated by the inevitable effects of arming cartels: an increase in homicides, and an unprecedented number of overdose deaths, families and neighborhoods torn apart by drugs and gun violence.”

While it may make sense to sue and hold the gun manufacturers accountable for their actions if they were directly arming drug cartels and every other armed criminal in the country, they are not.

Gun manufacturers produce a product that is shipped out to vendors who have strict controls on who they can and cannot sell the firearm to based on state and federal laws.

What happens after their product is lawfully sold they have no control over, much like every other manufacturer and/or supplier of goods in the world.

A car manufacturer cannot be held liable if a criminal decides to use it in an armed robbery or they decide to drive drunk and kill people in a crash.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First

 

Share:
Submit a Correction
Related Posts