03-22-2019, 05:23 PM
NugginFutz Wrote:What the case in Connecticut comes down to is whether or not it can be proven that Remington "marketed and sold a weapon to an individual while knowing there was a reasonable risk that that individual was likely to, and did, cause harm to others with that weapon" ("Negligent Entrustment"). A very difficult uphill battle, to be sure, but I truly believe they've got a chance, given the changes in political climate where demonizing one's adversaries is a viable substitute for a reasonable argument and open debate.Since Remington does not sell directly to individuals, I don't see how that definition of Negligent Entrustment applies.
However, if it can be interpreted as "marketed a weapon to the public while knowing there was a reasonable risk that that an individual is likely to cause harm to others with that weapon," that is easily proven by the history of mass shootings with semi-auto versions of military rifles.