Here are some interesting facts about the case.  Remington didn't settle.  Remington's insurance company is the one that settled.  Remington declared bankruptcy in 2020.

There is a federal law, passed in 2005, which protects gun manufacturers from liability for acts committed by third parties. 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1...20products.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

An actual functioning gun manufacturer, not a bankrupt one like Remington, would vigorously defend itself under that law.

But then there's this:  

Link (sorry if there's a paywall)

"The federal immunity law has an exception, under which manufacturers may be liable for injuries resulting from violations of state laws dealing with the marketing of their products."

Why were insurance companies involved in the first place if gun manufacturers have indemnity?  Obvious Remington had insurance policies to protect the company against such action to begin with.

What this case does is change the landscape.  Will insurance companies continue to insure firearm manufacturers, and if so, what happens to the premiums?  Will firearm manufacturers now have to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars for future decisions and settlements.  What does that mean for financiers?  At what point will we see firearm manufacturers unable to roll over existing debt as it matures.

Then again, this might fizzle out to nothing.

---

CCL Stroudcrowd1

Here are some interesting facts about the case.  Remington didn't settle.  Remington's insurance company is the one that settled.  Remington declared bankruptcy in 2020.

There is a federal law, passed in 2005, which protects gun manufacturers from liability for acts committed by third parties. 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1...20products.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

An actual functioning gun manufacturer, not a bankrupt one like Remington, would vigorously defend itself under that law.

But then there's this:  

Link (sorry if there's a paywall)

"The federal immunity law has an exception, under which manufacturers may be liable for injuries resulting from violations of state laws dealing with the marketing of their products."

Why were insurance companies involved in the first place if gun manufacturers have indemnity?  Obvious Remington had insurance policies to protect the company against such action to begin with.

What this case does is change the landscape.  Will insurance companies continue to insure firearm manufacturers, and if so, what happens to the premiums?  Will firearm manufacturers now have to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars for future decisions and settlements.  What does that mean for financiers?  At what point will we see firearm manufacturers unable to roll over existing debt as it matures.

Then again, this might fizzle out to nothing.

You can sue for any reason, all companies have insurance for lawsuits. Most companies don't let them handle cases and use better lawyers though. Since they don't exist anymore as a company, their insurance policy was basically the only thing left. The insurance company had to pay out as the company wouldn't spend money to fight it when there was no benefit to them. In order to keep from paying out, the insurance company makes you take them to court. Then they settle so they hopefully save some money.

I'm sure premiums will go up and some type of bonds or guarantees will be required.


It's the plan to work around the constitution. Guns will still be legal but the only manufacturers will only sell to the government. Therefore guns are banned because you can't buy them from anywhere.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

According to Wikipedia, there are 393 million guns in private hands in the US. That's more guns than there are people.

I wonder, with all the guns that are out there in private hands, why do we still need to manufacture them?

---

According to Wikipedia, there are 393 million guns in private hands in the US.  That's more guns than there are people. 

I wonder, with all the guns that are out there in private hands, why do we still need to manufacture them?

You don’t wear your dress shoes to the beach and you wouldn’t wear your sneakers or flip flops to a wedding. Just as there are different shoes for different occasions or uses same with guns. You’re not going to hunt a squirrel with the same rifle you’d go deer hunting. You’re not going to use something you use for plinking at the range for home protection.

---

According to Wikipedia, there are 393 million guns in private hands in the US.  That's more guns than there are people. 

I wonder, with all the guns that are out there in private hands, why do we still need to manufacture them?

Because some people want to exercise their constitutional right to purchase to purchase them.  Do we need a better reason?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

According to Wikipedia, there are 393 million guns in private hands in the US.  That's more guns than there are people. 

I wonder, with all the guns that are out there in private hands, why do we still need to manufacture them?

Because some people want to exercise their constitutional right to purchase to purchase them.  Do we need a better reason?

I was just wondering, if there are that many guns in private hands, why is there a continuing demand for more and more of them?  But I got a good answer already.  People have different guns for different purposes.  Good answer.

---

Because some people want to exercise their constitutional right to purchase to purchase them.  Do we need a better reason?

I was just wondering, if there are that many guns in private hands, why is there a continuing demand for more and more of them?  But I got a good answer already.  People have different guns for different purposes.  Good answer.

There's also wear and tear.  Guns don't last forever.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Because some people want to exercise their constitutional right to purchase to purchase them.  Do we need a better reason?

I was just wondering, if there are that many guns in private hands, why is there a continuing demand for more and more of them?  But I got a good answer already.  People have different guns for different purposes.  Good answer.

The reasons go far beyond specific use (No offense to Jags).  Some of us just like to collect.  

Demand has soared to record levels over the last couple years, much due to the rising trends to violence spreading across the country.  There are also vast numbers of first-time buyers.

---

I was just wondering, if there are that many guns in private hands, why is there a continuing demand for more and more of them?  But I got a good answer already.  People have different guns for different purposes.  Good answer.

There's also wear and tear.  Guns don't last forever.

LOL.  You are absolutely clueless!

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

---

There's also wear and tear.  Guns don't last forever.

LOL.  You are absolutely clueless!

No, you are.  
A gun lasts practically forever if you just leave it in a drawer, but, the more you shoot it, the more parts will wear out and need to be replaced.  Semi-autos have a lot of moving parts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I was just wondering, if there are that many guns in private hands, why is there a continuing demand for more and more of them?  But I got a good answer already.  People have different guns for different purposes.  Good answer.

The reasons go far beyond specific use (No offense to Jags).  Some of us just like to collect.  

Demand has soared to record levels over the last couple years, much due to the rising trends to violence spreading across the country.  There are also vast numbers of first-time buyers.

---

None taken.  I was just offering a broad or general answer that I felt covered many people with a very simple analogy.  I was going to list other reasons such as collectors but then I started thinking of my wife and purses (shoes too!) and just quit there.  

Me personally, I’m not quite a collector, but I suppose that’s what I’m doing.  I have maybe 12-15 firearms. I know that’s low for many people.  That number may be high for someone else. I know a few people that have multiple safes filled. I will be purchasing more.  Sure, I’d love to go out and use them more often.  In the meantime, I like having them.  Even if they rarely make it out of the safe.

---

I'm striving to be the Wade Hampton of the next American War of Government Aggression.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm striving to be the Wade Hampton of the next American War of Government Aggression.

May it never come to that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm striving to be the Wade Hampton of the next American War of Government Aggression.

May it never come to that.

Work for peace, prepare for war.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm striving to be the Wade Hampton of the next American War of Government Aggression.

So, just out of curiosity, why Wade Hampton?   The guy owned a bunch of slaves, fought on the losing side in the Civil War, and restored white supremacy when he became Governor of South Carolina.  Why do you want to be that guy?

---

---

LOL.  You are absolutely clueless!

No, you are.  
A gun lasts practically forever if you just leave it in a drawer, but, the more you shoot it, the more parts will wear out and need to be replaced.  Semi-autos have a lot of moving parts.

WOW!  Moving parts in a manmade device, with enough use, will eventually wear and require replacement.  Did you discover this all on your own?  I'll tell you a secret, even non-moving parts wear!
I suppose parts could be replaced (kinda like a car) and someone could keep using it......hey, if anyone out there is going to throw away a nice Beretta because it needs a recoil spring, Sneakers will take it off your hands for free.  

I never said guns didn't wear, I said you are clueless (as is any other equally uninformed individual who, like yourself, who attributes the surge in new gun sales to "wear" on existing guns.)  Why don't you tell me how many moving parts a "semi-auto" has and how many rounds the gun is good for.  Run along to the internet now.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

No, you are.  
A gun lasts practically forever if you just leave it in a drawer, but, the more you shoot it, the more parts will wear out and need to be replaced.  Semi-autos have a lot of moving parts.

WOW!  Moving parts in a manmade device, with enough use, will eventually wear and require replacement.  Did you discover this all on your own?  I'll tell you a secret, even non-moving parts wear!
I suppose parts could be replaced (kinda like a car) and someone could keep using it......hey, if anyone out there is going to throw away a nice Beretta because it needs a recoil spring, Sneakers will take it off your hands for free.  

I never said guns didn't wear, I said you are clueless (as is any other equally uninformed individual who, like yourself, who attributes the surge in new gun sales to "wear" on existing guns.)  Why don't you tell me how many moving parts a "semi-auto" has and how many rounds the gun is good for.  Run along to the internet now.

You're responding to things I didn't say.

I didn't say that only moving parts wear.
I didn't say the surge in new gun sales was due to wear on existing guns.  

Marty was asking "why do we still need to manufacture guns". Guns getting worn out is as good of an answer as any to why we need to continue to manufacture new guns. If gun manufacturers ever decide to stop selling new guns to the public, one would assume they would also stop selling replacement parts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No, you are.  
A gun lasts practically forever if you just leave it in a drawer, but, the more you shoot it, the more parts will wear out and need to be replaced.  Semi-autos have a lot of moving parts.

WOW!  Moving parts in a manmade device, with enough use, will eventually wear and require replacement.  Did you discover this all on your own?  I'll tell you a secret, even non-moving parts wear!
I suppose parts could be replaced (kinda like a car) and someone could keep using it......hey, if anyone out there is going to throw away a nice Beretta because it needs a recoil spring, Sneakers will take it off your hands for free.  

I never said guns didn't wear, I said you are clueless (as is any other equally uninformed individual who, like yourself, who attributes the surge in new gun sales to "wear" on existing guns.)  Why don't you tell me how many moving parts a "semi-auto" has and how many rounds the gun is good for.  Run along to the internet now.

You got yourself all in a tizzy didn't you.  Your hatred for Mike really comes through here. 

All he just said wear and tear as another reason.  He said nothing about surge in new gun sales - that's all you.

---

CCL Stroudcrowd1

I'm striving to be the Wade Hampton of the next American War of Government Aggression.

So, just out of curiosity, why Wade Hampton?   The guy owned a bunch of slaves, fought on the losing side in the Civil War, and restored white supremacy when he became Governor of South Carolina.  Why do you want to be that guy?

The question was about why the desire to collect guns. Everything you said is true but also irrelevant to the fact that Hampton brought his own Legion to the War.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

WOW!  Moving parts in a manmade device, with enough use, will eventually wear and require replacement.  Did you discover this all on your own?  I'll tell you a secret, even non-moving parts wear!
I suppose parts could be replaced (kinda like a car) and someone could keep using it......hey, if anyone out there is going to throw away a nice Beretta because it needs a recoil spring, Sneakers will take it off your hands for free.  

I never said guns didn't wear, I said you are clueless (as is any other equally uninformed individual who, like yourself, who attributes the surge in new gun sales to "wear" on existing guns.)  Why don't you tell me how many moving parts a "semi-auto" has and how many rounds the gun is good for.  Run along to the internet now.

You're responding to things I didn't say.

I didn't say that only moving parts wear.
I didn't say the surge in new gun sales was due to wear on existing guns.  

Marty was asking "why do we still need to manufacture guns". Guns getting worn out is as good of an answer as any to why we need to continue to manufacture new guns.  If gun manufacturers ever decide to stop selling new guns to the public, one would assume they would also stop selling replacement parts.

Well, which is it?  Let me know when you decide.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

You're responding to things I didn't say.

I didn't say that only moving parts wear.
I didn't say the surge in new gun sales was due to wear on existing guns.  

Marty was asking "why do we still need to manufacture guns". Guns getting worn out is as good of an answer as any to why we need to continue to manufacture new guns.  If gun manufacturers ever decide to stop selling new guns to the public, one would assume they would also stop selling replacement parts.

Well, which is it?  Let me know when you decide.

Marty didn't ask about any surge in sales.  He asked why we would need to continue manufacturing guns, presumably after that surge had passed.
Take the L, dude.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.