So many people I know are upset about a ruling handed down yesterday by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis concerning the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings back in 2012.
“Lawyers for Remington Arms sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the federal law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products. They said Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.
Judge Bellis ruled Thursday that argument would be best made in a motion later in the process and is not grounds to dismiss the lawsuit.”
The ruling by Judge Bellis only allows for the plaintiffs to begin a “discovery” process which means that they can request company documents and subpoena company officials for testimony. Remington can still have the case dismissed if plaintiffs have not shown cause exists with these preliminary documents.
I have no opinion, due to lack of information, as to whether or not this lawsuit should go to trial. My opinion is that I believe allowing discovery is in the best interests of the common working individual.
Whether you agree or disagree with my opinion, the background which I’ll provide about my opinion may even save someone’s life if they happen to own one of the defective Remington rifles.
I know some will stop reading and dismiss the rest. Even those who know me might stop and say this boy has lost his mind up in DC. I do have an agenda. It is to illustrate how media and pundits slant for their audiences and for dollars by spinning or over simplifying. I just prefer some context and to look at what the actual costs, precedent, or documentation is from primary sources.
Now I understand the arguments of not fair, cost, and cans of worms with the ruling, but look at the recent history of Remington. In 2014 Remington agreed to replace the trigger on approximately 7.5 million guns. Among those were the Model 700 bolt-action rifle, the Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725 rifles.
I suggest you use your own search engines and preferred sources of information to learn about why Remington made this decision. No matter your preferred source, I encourage everyone to view the 10 or so minute clip from CNBC linked below concerning their investigation.
There seems little discrepancy in these facts regardless of source consulted.
Debris could get inside the “trigger connector” and cause other parts of the trigger to become misaligned, rendering the gun unsafe. According to documents obtained through discovery, Remington had been aware since at least 1971 that the Walker Fire Control System can cause the weapons to fire without a trigger pull. Per the claims, the Model 700 can fire upon release of the safety, when the main bolt is moved, or when the gun is jarred or bumped. The same potential problem existed with the X-Mark Pro triggers.
In 1989 Remington engineers and lawyers met to discuss the problem, but they did not make any design changes out of fear that doing so would be an admission of guilt in various lawsuits filed in the 1970s and 80s.
It was a sad truth that a Remington with a defective Walker Fire Control System just lying on table could unintentionally fire a round. Even so in the year 2010 Remington issued an official statement that these triggers were free from defects even after their own internal testing duplicated the unintentional firings that had been alleged.
It was not until 11 April 2014 that Remington issued a recall of rifles with X-Mark Pro triggers manufactured between 2006 and 2014. That happened following the investigation by CNBC.
Now some will argue that this past history has nothing to do with the present case referenced in the FOX article many of my friends are sharing. Perhaps it doesn’t but I still think that the plaintiffs should be allowed discovery before a dismissal.
We all know that frivolous lawsuits are much too common, and hopefully y’all are different but I can only name 1 attorney who I truly respect as both a person and professional. Still I think all manufacturers regardless of product should be treated more or less equally.
They were until 2005 when Congress passed PLCAA or what became 15 U.S. Code § 7901 which protects firearms dealers and manufacturers in ways that no other manufacturer or dealer is protected.
Consider that if automobile manufacturers had the same protections afforded to gun manufacturers then devices such as airbags, crumple zones, and other passive or active safety options such as traction control would not exist today in all likelihood. That’s speculation, but the NRA and gun lobby attack which devalued Smith and Wesson and almost ruined the company in 2000 is proof that a single company cannot take on the power lobbies.
Some I know argue that it is unfair because the manufacturer will waste money in court. I’ve seen figures which range significantly, so I’m hesitant to guestimate the monetary costs passed along to consumers when certain companies are covered by Confidential Discovery Protective Orders.
If you’ve read this far, are wondering, or have never read anything else I have written about firearms, I think most gun fears are unreasonable on both extremes. A gun is just a tool. Used correctly it is good, but when used carelessly or for a wrongful purpose the consequences can be devastating. Too much gun is just as dangerous as too little gun, and it takes different skillsets to handle different guns. It’s a similar difference from driving a little car, a truck pulling a trailer, and an 18 wheeler.
Still nobody is confiscating personal weapons. Statistically it is impossible and if you doubt me, consider how long it would take to hand deliver a $1 bill to 500 households. How much longer would it take you to collect a $1 bill from those 500 households? Now imagine that the dollar is hidden, or the people there do not want to give up that dollar.
In terms of protection from our government, the fact is that if our government truly wanted your weapons or my weapons, we do not have enough firepower combined to stop them. Our military could turn us into dust or vapor within seconds.
When one listens to the arguments about guns, it sounds like we have a paranoia issue of Twilight Zone proportions. Does anyone really believe that no private usage and ownership of personal firearms existed prior to the year 2008? That’s what Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and the gun lobby claims.
The NRA-ILA has lobbied Congress and successfully banned more types of guns than the Obama White House via Executive Orders, Actions, or Memoranda. Seriously, you cannot buy a .22 Armatix, and Good Lord protect you if you even think of trying to carry that gun in stock as a gun dealer just down the road from me in Rockville, MD, discovered. You cannot manufacture firearms using new technology or newly developed materials. 3D technology and printing works and is advancing, but it is not in the financial interest of the gun lobby for consumers to have alternatives.
Things are so ridiculous today that if someone as a parent confiscates a rifle or shotgun from their 16-year-old child because that child was doing something unsafe, the parent may be prosecuted and most certainly labeled as anti Bill of Rights. To me that’s just as ridiculous as arguing that the same 16 year old is not capable of handling a rifle, shotgun, hacksaw, or even a basic chainsaw safely and responsibly.
I do not support denying discovery before any complaint is made. FOX News has discredited itself once more with such shoddy appealing to the lowest common denominator reporting.
I just fail to understand the arguments to treat gun manufacturers and dealers less stringently than others.
If you watched that short clip, what did little Gus Barber, his Dad, or his Mom do wrong? In that case give me any reason not to blame the gun manufacturer, Remington, for continuing to sell a firearm when their own tests confirmed earlier allegations of a dangerous design.
Correct nothing can restore that lost life, but shouldn’t we want to limit the possibility of other lives being lost?
Are we that blasted callous?
I admit that I think you’re right if your argument is that Sandy Hook happened because some sick, deranged, SOB, wanted to murder a bunch of innocent people and most likely had nothing at all to do with Remington. Many other weapons would have resulted in the same tragic outcome.
Even without Remington’s background in terms of safety, I think the survivors of the victims should have the right to see communications within the company about the incident.
Why, because if a drunken idiot drove a car into a group of people killing several, we have the right to review safety records of that car. That drunken idiot is to blame, but we may discover that some alteration or safety device in the vehicle may be able to at minimum limit the amount of people killed in another situation. That’s why many people my age never learned to “pump the brakes” on the first new cars or trucks we bought because everything had anti-lock brakes by that time.
Why are gun manufacturers and dealers alone placed upon this protective little pedestal? I don’t know but sadly I think that many I know are grateful that gun manufacturers and dealers have more protections than say they themselves do selling a strawberry at the farmers’ market, doing some plumbing or electrical work in a home, or building a piece of furniture.
Why? I really haven’t a clue, but I reckon the Good Lord knows that none of us survived past the year 2005 when this protection went into force. Good Lord knows that none of us could own or carry a firearm before the year 2008.
Folks, it is the year 2016, and if you’re reading this or currently speaking with me then you or in some cases because of your age then your Mom and Dad survived after 2005 and 2008 just like me.