that dont work... thats one of the citys that voted to defund the police.....She really did take it up the @$$. How about suing the subway system for not having enough cops on the trains. Or the DA for letting the scum bag back out on (Under) the streets.
Magdump, Remington did not 'cave'. Remington wasn't even involved in the settlement. The settlement was agreed to by the lawyers for the insurance companies and others involved in the bankruptcy of Remington, so that the bankruptcy could be completed. Remington was not found at fault. This suit will not go far as at some point a court will rule Glock is protected by the PLCAA law.Let’s just hope Glock won’t cave like Remington did. Maybe turn some of that precedent around. Austrians are a lot like Germans when it comes to ridiculous litigation. They ain’t for that smack. Glock is a pretty smart outfit all the way around. I truly wish them the best of luck.
Did she have to mark off a spot to get hit there. Seems like she's all aß.
Magdump, Remington did not 'cave'. Remington wasn't even involved in the settlement. The settlement was agreed to by the lawyers for the insurance companies and others involved in the bankruptcy of Remington, so that the bankruptcy could be completed. Remington was not found at fault. This suit will not go far as at some point a court will rule Glock is protected by the PLCAA law.
If I died and left some unfinished business that someone chose to litigate over, if they got a filing before I croaked or before I went bankrupt they could sue my estate. This is the boat going up that Remington river. Remington is Remington regardless of the owner or claiming bankruptcy or going defunct. Whomever represents the entity has agreed to settle, hence my statement. If they’d decided to remain a profitable company in this, the golden age of firearms sales, they may have put up a fight, or (considering their very poor choices in legal matters over the years) maybe not. Remington caved in more ways that one, prior to the lawsuit.There is some major confusion about the Sandy Hook parents lawsuit against “Remington” regarding the settlement reached earlier this year. See article:
Reading this, you might see how a handful write it, which is miles away from the 99.9% of the MSM’s headlines, which specifically state “Remington”. Ironically, the Remington that they’re referring to was 1-2 companies back. I think I’m the only guy that didn’t own Remington at some point or another!
Seriously, AWAK, the MSM uses specific wording in a headline to convey specific messaging in hopes it’ll influence your opinion by A) changing your opinion to theirs or B) reinforcing your opinion if you already believe everything you read, just like they want.
This suit went after marketing and not the product itself, which the PLCAA protects. It depends on where you read it, but the Remington being referred to in this case is long gone, leaving 4 different insurers with a total of 5 different policies.
It’s like Mark Twain said about determining someone’s status of being informed….
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk