Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Remington offers to settle.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,427
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Remington offers to settle.

    Looks like Remington is rolling over. Offering 33 million to settle. I wonder why Magpul and the ammo company didn't get sued also? Or did they?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rem...ms-2021-07-27/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DEEP SOUTH
    Posts
    1,269
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    And this is how they win and kill this industry.

    Next drunk driver that kills someone I hope the victims family sues the car manufacturer and the booze company.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Not in a gun friendly state
    Posts
    3,366
    Feedback Score
    0
    Pussies. The whole "never negotiate with terrorists" thing is long gone. When you're a big company like Remington, money is the answer. To them, the cheaper option is just pay out. It's the same reason towns will settle with people who accuse cops of brutality even after all investigations have shown the officer to have been completely in the right. It's the answer to stopping everything: Pay them off. It's cheap now, but all it does is create bigger problems.

    There's no legal precedent set at least.
    Last edited by BoringGuy45; 08-02-21 at 13:13.
    Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.-Ben Franklin

    there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.-Samwise Gamgee

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ROCKET CITY, USA
    Posts
    3,689
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Yet ANOTHER reason on the already LONG list of reasons I will never ever never buy anything else new again from Remington.
    Last edited by Straight Shooter; 08-02-21 at 14:36.
    " Be NOT ye afraid of them..
    Remember the Lord, for He is GREAT & TERRIBLE!
    FIGHT for your bretheren..for your sons & for your daughters,
    for your wives & for your households"!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    5,454
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Like it or not, it's mathematics. Apparently Remington's attorneys thought the company would spend a lot more than 33 million by going to trial.

    It's not about right or wrong in a lot of civil cases, it's about damage control and spending the least amount of money.
    Train 2 Win

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    27,422
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CRAMBONE View Post
    And this is how they win and kill this industry.

    Next drunk driver that kills someone I hope the victims family sues the car manufacturer and the booze company.
    And the cell phone provider for the person who was texting while driving. And I guess the onboard touch screen ("look at me instead of the road") computer console company.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    8,266
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TomMcC View Post
    Looks like Remington is rolling over. Offering 33 million to settle. I wonder why Magpul and the ammo company didn't get sued also? Or did they?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rem...ms-2021-07-27/
    This might offer some insight:

    https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bankr...gton-sold-off/

    Yesterday it was announced that Remington Outdoors Co. will be purchased by seven buyers–each taking a different piece or pieces of the once-great American firearms manufacture.

    But what does that mean going forward? Is this good news for the average gun-owner or bad?

    The winners are, pending final court approval but I would be shocked if there were any take-backs:

    Vista Outdoor Inc. bought the Lonoke based ammunitions business and other IP assets
    Roundhill Group LLC bought everything firearms that is non-Marlin
    Sierra Bullets LLC bought Barnes ammunitions
    Sturm, Ruger, & Co. bought Marlin firearms
    JJE Capital Holdings LLC won DPMS, H&R, Stormlake, AAC and Parker brands
    Franklin Armory Holdings Inc. won Bushmaster brand and some related assets
    Sportsman’s Warehouse Inc. won the Tapco brands
    So did the real estate company who bought the Remington Arms plant pay the settlement? Or did Franklin Armory Holdings LLC, who "won" the Bushmaster brand, which was the one Lanza used? I wouldn't think "Remington Arms Company" would have any assets at this point?
    What if this whole crusade's a charade?
    And behind it all there's a price to be paid
    For the blood which we dine
    Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,427
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by glocktogo View Post
    This might offer some insight:

    https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bankr...gton-sold-off/



    So did the real estate company who bought the Remington Arms plant pay the settlement? Or did Franklin Armory Holdings LLC, who "won" the Bushmaster brand, which was the one Lanza used? I wouldn't think "Remington Arms Company" would have any assets at this point?
    I was kind of wondering that myself...just who is ponying up the golden denards. Maybe the new "owners" just wanted to put a tourniquet on the bleeding like T2C said.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    595
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by T2C View Post
    Like it or not, it's mathematics. Apparently Remington's attorneys thought the company would spend a lot more than 33 million by going to trial.

    It's not about right or wrong in a lot of civil cases, it's about damage control and spending the least amount of money.
    Though you may be right, the problem I have is that it sets a precedent. If you win in court, it also sets a precedent that this nonsense doesn't go anywhere.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    5,454
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by czgunner View Post
    Though you may be right, the problem I have is that it sets a precedent. If you win in court, it also sets a precedent that this nonsense doesn't go anywhere.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    I agree. The fact that the judge did not dismiss Remington out of the suit is what set the precedent. It should have been done based on product liability immunity (that's a SWAG) if I remember what my lawyer told me correctly. It's no different than suing Ford Motor Company successfully after Mr. Pidasso gets high and drives his F250 through a crowd.

    I've been sued in the past and it sucks when the insurance carrier settles out of court for $50,000, because legal costs would exceed that amount by an astronomical figure. If there are no punitive damages, they don't think you have cause to complain about the settlement.
    Train 2 Win

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •