Search
Close this search box.

Sandy Hook Families Settle For $73 Million with Gun Maker Remington

FILE — A parent walks away from the Sandy Hook Elementary School with her children following a shooting at the school in Newtown, Conn., Dec. 14, 2012. The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have agreed to a settlement of a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 20 first graders and six educators in 2012, according to a court filing, Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2022. (Frank Becerra Jr./The Journal News via AP)

The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School have agreed to a $73 million settlement of a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 20 first graders and six educators in 2012.

Remington, which made the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used in the massacre, also agreed to allow the families to release numerous documents they obtained during the lawsuit including ones showing how it marketed the weapon, the families said Tuesday.

The families and a survivor of the shooting sued Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public. They said their focus was on preventing future mass shootings.

“Today is not about honoring our son Benjamin. Today is about how and why Ben died,” said Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the shooting. “It is about what is right and what is wrong. Our legal system has given us some justice today, but David and I will never have true justice. True justice would be our fifteen-year-old healthy and here with us.”

Messages seeking comment were left for Remington and its lawyers Tuesday.

The civil court case in Connecticut focused on how the firearm used by the Newtown shooter — a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle — was marketed, alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. In one of Remington’s ads, it features the rifle against a plain backdrop and the phrase: “Consider Your Man Card Reissued.”

Remington had argued there was no evidence to establish that its marketing had anything to do with the shooting.

The company also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of a federal law that gives broad immunity to the gun industry. But the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle. The gun maker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

The case was watched by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and gun manufacturers across the country because it had the potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other mass shootings to circumvent the federal law and sue the makers of firearms.

Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gun makers founded in 1816, filed for bankruptcy for a second time in 2020 and its assets were later sold off to several companies. The manufacturer was weighed down by lawsuits and retail sales restrictions following the school shooting.

Four insurers for the now-bankrupt company agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, totaling $73 million, the plaintiffs said.

“This victory should serve as a wake up call not only to the gun industry, but also the insurance and banking companies that prop it up. For the gun industry, it’s time to stop recklessly marketing all guns to all people for all uses and instead ask how marketing can lower risk rather than court it,” said Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman in the Sandy Hook shooting, used the rifle made by Remington and legally owned by his mother to kill the children and educators on Dec. 14, 2012, after having killed his mother at their Newtown home. He then used a handgun to kill himself as police arrived.

Lanza’s severe and deteriorating mental health problems, his preoccupation with violence and access to his mother’s weapons “proved a recipe for mass murder,” according to Connecticut’s child advocate.

(AP)



2 Responses

  1. This is a travesty, and the money those families will be getting is stolen money. They should choke on it. The AR-15 is a weapon, so it’s by definition dangerous to those it’s used against, which is its whole purpose! But it is not more dangerous to them than any other weapon. And of course it cannot be illegal to manufacture or to market weapons, because the constitution recognizes that being armed is a fundamental human right, exactly the same as the freedom of speech or religion. The lawsuit was frivolous, designed to drive the defendant into bankruptcy, exactly as if someone sued a yeshiva for teaching Torah. Everyone involved in bringing it will burn in gehennom.

  2. @Millhouse everyone pays

    the whole law suit is ridiculous. you dont sue the car company and the alcohol company just because someone was driving drunk and killed your son
    as with everything in life their is a risk
    should everyone should lock up their kitchen knives just in case someone will break in and steal them, commit murder just because you will be sued?
    no its ridiculous and infringement of common sense.

    quick question is it required for liberals to have their common sense removed in order to register to vote?

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts