S&W independence bound again - WaltherForums
WaltherForums
 

Go Back   WaltherForums > General Interest > Free Range Time

Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By WiseguyDS
  • 1 Post By 1942bull
  • 1 Post By 1942bull
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-13-2019, 11:26 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
WiseguyDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Texas
Posts: 347
WiseguyDS .22
S&W independence bound again

From news reports: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...r-brands-split
halfmoonclip likes this.
__________________
NRA - Patriot Life Member / Benefactor
Member: Gun Owners of America
Member: TX Rifle Association

Walther: PP, PPK, PPK/s, PPS
1911s: Colt, Springfield, AO
SIG P225A1, P229, P232
S&W: Chief's Special
Mousers: Browning/Bauer/Galesi VP
WiseguyDS is offline   Reply With Quote
Register
Old 11-14-2019, 07:58 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
1942bull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: SE PA
Posts: 200
1942bull .22
I don’t find that surprising now that the “political environment” is threatening profitability of a parent company because of the business of the owned entity. But I think there is another reason. SCOTUS had allowed the Newtown parents lawsuit against Remington to proceed in CT courts. That means American Outdoor now has increased liability exposures. As long as it owns S&W it could face financial fallout if S&W is sued and loses a case. While the corporate separation would likely protect American any loss by S&W would hurt the financial statements of American. So while American offers a different reason I think the underlying reason is a CYA financial decision.
halfmoonclip likes this.
__________________
Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage............ Theodore Roosevelt
1942bull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 09:22 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Wildtoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Blythewood, SC
Posts: 515
Wildtoad .22
Agree it is financial decision to protect the parent company. I still believe that the ultimate decision is that the manufacturer should be held harmless if someone uses a legally purchased weapon to commit a crime. A parent who buys a gun and fails to secure it, fails to monitor the psychological status of a child, is a problem. Looks like the case is going after them which have deep pockets and large amounts of liability insurance.
__________________
Tom

Walther (2009) PPK .380, (2013) PPK/S .22, Ruger (2017) LCP .380, Henry (2017) Mares Leg .22
Wildtoad is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 11-14-2019, 11:27 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
surrealone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,732
surrealone .38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtoad View Post
Agree it is financial decision to protect the parent company. I still believe that the ultimate decision is that the manufacturer should be held harmless if someone uses a legally purchased weapon to commit a crime. A parent who buys a gun and fails to secure it, fails to monitor the psychological status of a child, is a problem. Looks like the case is going after them which have deep pockets and large amounts of liability insurance.
I'm hopeful that we won't see the manufacturer held responsible for the wrongdoing of someone who utilized that which was manufactured, regardless of advertising (which is, as I understand it, the crux of the suit against Remington). Key to this hope is that if the manufacturer IS held liable, it opens all kinds of doors to more lawsuits. Example: Car manufacturer advertises its car as really fast, and someone kills a pedestrian while driving one of those cars really fast - boom, lawsuit against manufacturer.

The whole Remington suit seems a) vindictive (to the gun industry) and b) frivolous to me, at least.
__________________
Gun Safety Rule #1: Carry one.
Pump actions speak louder than words.
NRA Certified Instructor, Range Safety Officer, & Benefactor Member
surrealone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 11:41 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
1942bull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: SE PA
Posts: 200
1942bull .22
Since the SCOTUS rejection of the case, I have been doing some reading about it. Not being a legal professional I can just make judgements on what I read not what I know.

This SCOTUS majority is reluctant to get into intrastate proceedings because probably due to some inclination to support federalism. However, there is some thinking that SCOTUS believes it should deal with final outcomes of state cases. So once the case is resolved in CT, it could be appealed to SCOTUS. In that case th federal prohibition against such lawsuits would come into direct play as the prevailing law governing the question. If SCOTUS were to support the federal law, which I think it would, that would end the matter and similar matters.

Anyway if I interpreted what I read correctly I think it makes sense based upon the normal selection process that SCOTUS applies and has applied for decades.
halfmoonclip likes this.
__________________
Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage............ Theodore Roosevelt
1942bull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 12:39 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
surrealone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,732
surrealone .38
I tend to agree -- meaning I tend to think Remington appealed at the wrong time. The correct time would seem to be only if they lose the suit against them.
__________________
Gun Safety Rule #1: Carry one.
Pump actions speak louder than words.
NRA Certified Instructor, Range Safety Officer, & Benefactor Member
surrealone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 01:28 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
DeutschlandUberAlles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 2,544
DeutschlandUberAlles .22
No surprise, S&W was cut from the herd, should be sacrificed to the anti-gun predators in the next few years.
__________________
A Man's God given rights rest in THREE boxes, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
DeutschlandUberAlles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 11:31 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
WiseguyDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Texas
Posts: 347
WiseguyDS .22
@1942bull: i think your assessment is spot on. Losing a case isnt the end. SCOTUS wants it to go through the process, appeals if procedurally necessary and then on final appeal, they’ll reconcile it with constitutional order. I really dont think gun manufacturers ultimately will be found liable.
__________________
NRA - Patriot Life Member / Benefactor
Member: Gun Owners of America
Member: TX Rifle Association

Walther: PP, PPK, PPK/s, PPS
1911s: Colt, Springfield, AO
SIG P225A1, P229, P232
S&W: Chief's Special
Mousers: Browning/Bauer/Galesi VP
WiseguyDS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 02:34 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,842
halfmoonclip .22
Sincerely hope you gentlemen are correct; your reasoning certainly seems sound.
There may be some concern in the S&W deal to act before the 2020 election.
Moon
__________________
"There is nothing there but war
Hear the murderin' cannons roar
And they say that we must go
and fight for Lincoln..."
halfmoonclip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   WaltherForums > General Interest > Free Range Time

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.