Walther Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
329 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
329 Posts
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,854 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
360 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
@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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,155 Posts
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
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top