Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/uspatri1/public_html/index.php:32) in /home/uspatri1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 1197
An Attempt to Break Federal Law: Sandy Hook Families Take Remington to Court | U.S. PATRIOT NEWS & REVIEWS

An Attempt to Break Federal Law: Sandy Hook Families Take Remington to Court

The AR-15 is perhaps the most popular semi-auto rifle on the commercial market today. It’s technically been in production since 1958 having been designed in 1957 by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan. Those men were part of the Fairchild Armalite Corporation. Put simply, the AR-15 is a lightweight, air-cooled rifle that takes intermediate cartridges and is magazine-fed. Although the popular long gun got its start in the military as the M16, which is absolutely not identical to the AR-15, it’s had plenty of time on the commercial market: five decades, plus a few years. While the title of “AR-15” is actually trademarked by Colt, there are a vast number of rifles out there built using the AR-15 platform.

A word about the AR-15: a rose by any other name just might smell as sweet, at least Shakespeare believed it to be true, but an AR has one name and one alone. It might be a rather devastating blow to the mainstream media’s love of biased portrayals of firearms in general but that name is not “assault rifle.” Actually, according to the U.S. Department of Defense’s very own Defense Intelligence Agency book “Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide” there’s a specific description belonging to an “assault rifle”. An assault rifle is a battlefield rifle which fires automatically, as in, you squeeze the trigger and it fires…and keeps on firing, as long as you’ve got your booger hooker on the bang switch. Civilian ARs not only do not fire on full-auto, they legally cannot, not unless a gun owner takes on the required steps for a full-auto gun – and then it needs to be pre-1986 production. Civilian AR-15s are semi-auto, meaning they only fire one round for each squeeze of the trigger. Oh, one more thing: “AR” stands for “Armalite Rifle,” a minor detail that undoubtedly dismays the mainstream media – or would if they ever bothered researching topics before claiming to be experts on them.

This is all well and good, you’re thinking, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China (if we’re still allowed to say that)? I’m glad you asked.

Sandy HookOn December 14, 2012, a horrific atrocity took place: the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. The shooting was carried out by a mentally-ill and blatantly unstable 20-year-old man by the name of Adam Lanza. 20 children of the ages of 6 and 7 were killed as were half a dozen adults, all of whom were on the school’s staff. The first casualty of the day was actually Lanza’s mother, though. He shot and killed her in their shared home before turning his murderous attention on the elementary school. It was truly a horrible day, and although there are many arguments and debates surrounding what took place on that date, we can all agree on one thing: it was a day of unspeakable violence, a day of grief and loss on many levels.

The guns used by Lanza were a Bushmaster XM15-E2S and a Glock 20 SF; well, those are the two guns frequently mentioned by mainstream media. He also used a Savage MK 11-F, that’s what he used to murder his mother, but since it’s a bolt-action rifle it tends to be ignored. Even the pistol is largely ignored in favor of picking at the Bushmaster, because the Bushmaster just happens to be the type of gun favored by the media as a focus for their anti-gun agendas (that and the pistol was only fired twice: one errant shot when Lanza first entered the school, a shot that did not hit a living target, and once when Lanza used the Glock as a tool of his own suicide when he knew the police were closing in).

We are working on four years now since Sandy Hook, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually over. Quite the contrary. You see, now the families of those lost have a target of their own. A target they hope will open its coffers on a monetary level and compensate them financially for their losses. That target is Remington – a company celebrating its 200th anniversary this year. As of 2016, they are the largest and oldest constantly-running firearms and ammunition manufacturer in the United States. As of 2016, they’ve run into a few obstacles, and one of those obstacles just happens to be a frivolous lawsuit supposedly being propelled ahead by grieving parents.

Of the 20 children and 6 adults murdered in 2012 by Lanza – a total of 26 – nine have surviving family members involved in the lawsuit against Remington. There’s also a Sandy Hook teacher involved. Never mind the fact that no one from or associated with Remington had anything to do with the rifle Lanza used. Never mind the fact that it wasn’t even Lanza’s rifle; the Bushmaster belonged to his mother, who he murdered. Never mind the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants companies like Remington immunity against lawsuits just like this one.

Is it understandable that the families of victims must have a target for their grief? Understandable they feel the need to blame someone, anyone, for the travesty of a six or seven-year-old child who will never experience all the things they should have, such as going to Senior Prom, graduating from college, getting married…the list goes on. Of course it’s understandable. However, understanding the cause of their grief and agreeing the grief itself is absolutely legitimate does not make their method of expressing it understandable. There’s a reason the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was made into federal law in 2005, and its reasons such as this lawsuit.

Joshua Koskoff
Joshua Koskoff

So what platform is the lawsuit standing on in its hope to win big in court? According to Joshua Koskoff, an attorney working the for the families, it’s this: “Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. Military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat – and that weapon in the military is cared for with a tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it – they took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making money.”

How do the family members involved explain their involvement? Jackie Barden, a mother who lost a 7-year-old son Daniel to Lanza’s murderous rampage, described it thusly: Barden claims her two remaining children have asked her why the AR-15 is on the civilian market in the first place or why “AR-15-style Remington” rifles are used in games such as Call of Duty. “It’s hard to explain when you really don’t know why yourself. It’s hard to answer because you don’t want them growing up being afraid.”

At first glance it appears this lawsuit is based on an incredible lack of knowledge of firearms. Attempts to paint the AR-15 platform as something no different than the M16s used by soldiers are made by the media on a regular basis, and they are just as inaccurate and ludicrous today as they were the first time, the tenth time, the hundredth time they were uttered. Those who say firing an AR-15 can be accomplished “as fast as you can pull the trigger” have just described pretty much every firearm out there. Any gun can be fired as quickly as you can operate it, and as the many talented competitive shirts can prove, that can be quite fast – regardless of the platform.

This is not a lawsuit about grief, though. This is not a lawsuit based on the need for grieving parents to get some closure, any closure (and the hard reality is, even if they were to win this lawsuit, they would not find any closure whatsoever). This is also not a lawsuit based on a lack of knowledge of firearms although the obvious, gaping void of knowledge is hard to ignore. This is a lawsuit about gun control. This is a lawsuit about doing away with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Because if that federal law can be successfully challenged it would be a major boon for the gun control crowd. It would be grounds for celebration for the anti-gunners.

Second Amendment rights have been under attack for some time. This is nothing new, but it is something being somehow ignored by the vast majority of gun owners. After all, it’s been in the media here and there, but it hasn’t been given broad coverage. All the better to sneak it by without attention being paid. Attention might mean letters written, protests being organized, and pro-2A, law-abiding gun owners making their opinions known.

If it seems too late to join the fight now, well, it isn’t. It’s never too late, and you are never out of the fight. Get involved with pro-gun legislation. Fight back against anti-gun lawsuit such as this lawsuit against Remington. It does not matter if Remington is your favorite gun company or not. What matters is what is right, and this is not right. Make your voices heard and give Big Green your support, because the outcome of this lawsuit will be far-reaching. Have no doubt: you will feel its impact.

AR-15s are versatile guns. They’re fantastic for everything from basic target practice to home defense to hunting. And just like every gun, they are tools. They are capable only of acting out the desires of the person whose finger is on the trigger.

Make your desires known. Get involved. Make your voice heard. Don’t expect someone else to protect your rights.

Oh, and one more thing: support Remington. They do deserve your support. They are a massive part of the firearms industry; they have helped shape its progress. Now it’s time for you to do your part. Get to it.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Katherine Ainsworth

Katherine is a military and political journalist with a reputation for hard-hitting, no-holds-barred articles. Her career as a writer has immersed her in the military lifestyle and given her unique insights into the various branches of service. She is a firearms aficionado and has years of experience as a K9 SAR handler, and has volunteered with multiple support-our-troops charities for more than a decade. Katherine is passionate about military issues and feels supporting service members should be the top priority for all Americans. Her areas of expertise include the military, politics, history, firearms and canine issues.
Katherine Ainsworth

1 thought on “An Attempt to Break Federal Law: Sandy Hook Families Take Remington to Court

  1. Not sure what your legal qualifications are Katherine, but if the lawsuit is frivolous as you appear to be alleging, then the courts we deal with it accordingly.

    The fact is that law suits against ‘men of straw’ (such as Mr Lanza) are pointless exercises. Therefore lawyers will always push their clients to aim for the defendant with the deepest pockets. In this case, it is Remington.

    That said, it concerns me that you appear to be acting as a one person booster squad for Remington while seemingly ignoring the life changing trauma suffered by those left behind by the crimes of Mr Lanza. Please try to spare more than a passing thought for these poor souls while trying to prosthelitize in favour of the Second Amendment. That are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can protect one while empathising with the other. Trust me, it isn’t difficult.

    Losing a loved one to violent crime leaves a person scarred for life. I pray that you never have to find this out from direct experience. But you shouldn’t need to experience that pain directly in order to spare a kind thought for the victims of Sandy Hook that Lanza didn’t manage to slay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *