Remington Arms Petitions Court For Injunctive Relief
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 7 months ago
Gunmaker Remington has asked a judge to halt what it characterized as an unreasonable and unconstitutional demand by the Massachusetts attorney general for its customer information.
Remington Arms Co. filed the petition for injunctive relief on Aug. 29 in Suffolk County Superior Court, saying Attorney General Maura Healey’s civil investigation demand is “excessively burdensome” and tramples the Fourth Amendment rights of the company and its customers.
“The AG’s demand that Remington produce each of the Product Service files without redacting customer identifying information violates the privacy rights of its customers, chills lawful conduct in exercise of the Second Amendment, and substantially interferes with Remington’s business and customer good will,” the petition states.
Remington’s demand comes on the heels of a March 9 civil investigation demand by Healey, seeking a copy of each product service file Remington has for every one of its customers.
Cyndi Roy Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office, said the demand is part of an investigation into how often Remington’s guns had potentially dangerous defects.
“There are scores of public reports about defects involving firearms, including accidental firing, misfiring, overheating problems and low ‘trigger pull’ leading to horrific stories of accidental shootings by children,” Roy Gonzalez said in an email.
Lack of product-safety oversight in the gun industry makes demands like these critical, the spokeswoman added.
“Many years ago, the gun industry managed to exempt itself from federal consumer product safety oversight, resulting in no public access to consumer complaints about the guns they manufacture,” Roy Gonzalez said. “This lack of transparency is unlike nearly every other consumer product sold in this country. As the chief law enforcement office in Massachusetts, we are seeking that information to better inform our residents and to protect them from any safety or manufacturing issues with guns sold here. It’s unfortunate that these gun manufacturers have taken our office to court rather than comply with a simple request for consumer complaints and related information.”
Here is a test question for readers. Where in the constitution of her state does it give SJW Healey the right to demand customer information over an investigation into product safety when no laws have been broken? In case you missed that one, here’s an extra credit question worth 100%. Where does the constitution of her state give the AG the right to spend taxpayer money to perform studies and inform citizens concerning her opinions on product safety, or to rank products according to her own criteria?
Every reader should have scored 200% on that examination. It’s a shame that Remington has to petition the court for injunctive relief, rather than gathering some local gun owners, apprehending Maura Healey and using some hemp rope to hang her from the nearest lamp post as an example to other social justice warriors to mind their own damn business.
Prior:
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Attacks Gun Manufacturers
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s Crusade Against Guns
On September 8, 2016 at 11:37 am, Archer said:
What recourse will Remington have once this is over (assuming the injunction is granted and the suit is dismissed, as would be proper)? It’s pretty clear that SJW Healey is not acting in the interests of justice; she is leveraging her position to harass and punish a corporation that has broken no laws, because she doesn’t like the products they make. Her immunity as a prosecutor is not unlimited — it only applies to “seeking justice” in good faith — but at what point can she be legally (or better yet, criminally) sanctioned for overstepping?
(See also: MD State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who proceeded to press criminal charges against the six “Freddie Gray” officers, despite investigators concluding they acted lawfully and appropriately. It’s not “seeking justice” to try to score political points by harassing and pressing charges against innocent people. The same goes for harassing law-abiding businesses. I hope this doesn’t become a pattern.)
On September 8, 2016 at 12:00 pm, UNCLEELMO said:
There’s just one problem. The Superior Court judge that Remington is petitioning is probably of like mind as SJW Healey, and probably views the Constitution with the same contempt she does.
After all, it is Massachusetts we’re talking about here.
On September 8, 2016 at 7:55 pm, Billy Mullins said:
What I cannot understand is why Remington continues to do business in Taxachusetts. Can’t the board and management see that these SJWs are trying to shut them down?
On September 8, 2016 at 10:28 pm, Enoch Crosby said:
Why any gun company would do biz in a Anti Gun state is beyond me.
IMHO, they should stop selling there products in these states and that includes to LE.
Let there Pretorian Guard protect them with Kung Fu and Ninja implements, oh wait, there most likely illegal in those states also.
So be it Kung Fu only.
Let the Traitors and there Loyalist Minions taste the inability to defend one’s self.
To be Victimized at will , to be powerless.
Step the F$8k up Gun Manufacturers or your days are rightly numbered!!
On September 11, 2016 at 12:37 pm, Sandydog said:
Although Remington’s conduct over the decades that they have known about the M600/700/7-series Walker trigger dangers was, and continues to be, reprehensible, this aspect of firearms safety (‘unsafe’ firearms) is completely outside the purview of a state attorney general. Defective (poorly designed, poorly manufactured) firearms matters are best handled in the federal courts, as the products are sold across state lines.
Firearms are unlike any other consumer product; They are not designed to be ‘safe,’ but are designed instead specifically to be extremely dangerous products that bear an inherent risk of serious injury or death to the user and those around him/her. They simply cannot be designed or manufactured in a manner that removes their lethality without removing their utility completely. To allow a state AG to treat firearms as if they were ordinary consumer goods, such as toasters, peanut butter, or feminine hygiene products, is ludicrous on its face.
In this instance, AG Healey is merely looking for an avenue with which to litigate Remington, and S&W, out of business if she can, for personal and political reasons. S&W is particularly vulnerable, having its main plant still in Springfield–a serious mistake on their part.
Admittedly, firearms CAN be made so that they really do only what they are supposed to do: Fire reliably each and every time (absent the vagaries of ammunition) the trigger is pulled, but ONLY when the trigger is pulled while whatever safety device affixed is in the ‘off’ position. If a manufacturer of firearms builds an especially dangerous (to the user, safety-wise) firearm, then they can, and should be, sued by injured parties in federal court–just as Remington has been, and they’ve paid out millions, with more sure to come.
Remington holds a special place in its attitude about producing reliable firearms; It has built several million units of an entire series of popular rifles that CAN fire without a trigger pull AND with the safety ‘on,’ and has refused to warn its customers of the obvious defect. That meets at least two of the prongs of product safety liability: Defective by design, and failure to warn of the defect. In some instances, they’ve also met the second prong: Defect in materials and manufacture. Only one prong is necessary to prove a case; They’ve managed a trifecta.
That does NOT mean, however, that the MA AG should be in any way involved in investigating Remington’s history; That’s already been done, their culpability proven, and judgement rendered in FEDERAL court, in a non-political manner. She’s just out for blood on her own account, not to protect MA consumers.
Although S&W would have a hard time separating itself from MA, Remington should be able to extricate itself from doing business with, and in, MA without too much difficulty, and should do so immediately.
On September 11, 2016 at 3:18 pm, Fred said:
“They are not designed to be ‘safe,’ but are designed instead specifically to be extremely dangerous products that bear an inherent risk of serious injury or death to the user and those around him/her.”
NOT HELPING!
Guns are inherently Inanimate. Humans are inherently dangerous and pose a risk when handling a weapon, any weapon, or anything that can be made or used as a weapon. The problem with firearms is the users and perhaps the manufacturer, a corporate entity of humans. It is people that bear an inherent risk to each other and property, not guns.
Sir, please read the Holy Bible and ask God to give you understanding of His natural law.
On September 12, 2016 at 12:15 pm, Sandydog said:
Reality is not something to fear or hide, it is something to be understood and accepted. Whether reality ‘helps’ or not is irrelevant; It is what it is.
I meant no disrespect, or revisionism; It’s just a simple, widely-understood fact that firearms by their nature are intended to propel by means of an explosion a small bit of hard metal travelling at incredible velocity and carrying a high energy potential to a distant target at the will of the user. Such a device is DESIGNED to be ‘dangerous’ and destructive–that is its entire purpose for existing. If the high-speed, high-energy projectile hits something, it will be damaged–dented, perforated, or possibly killed if it’s alive. Doesn’t that sound dangerous to you?
Granted, it is at the sole discretion of the user whether the tool that is a firearm is used for good or evil; The tool is inanimate, but it is still a tool designed to punch small holes in things at a distance with extreme force–nothing more nor less. A firearm in the hands of the most God-fearing, principled man is still a firearm, a tool for punching holes in things with force. The man holding it, for good or evil, chooses the target, or chooses whether or not to shoot, but the firearm still maintains its ability to do what it is designed to do on command–punch holes in things.
If you intend to convey that firearms can be tools for good–useful in self-defense, for example–I agree wholeheartedly. However, the purpose of a firearm in self-defense, at a minimum, is the threat that its inherent dangerous nature poses: “If you attempt to do a bad thing to me, I will use this firearm to punch a hole in your body with considerable force and with unfortunate consequences for you.” If that inherent dangerousness was absent, a firearm would be of little use, as it would no longer be a firearm–if it didn’t work to punch holes in things at a distance, or pose the threat of doing so, what other use would it have? A good sharp screwdriver would be a better choice for self-defense–it’s a tool, it pokes holes, and it can also screw screws!
There is nothing wrong with admitting what firearms DO; To deny their lethal nature, their reason for being, is simply useless obfuscation.
You see that we do not really disagree. A firearm’s purpose is easily defended, but that purpose remains what it is and always has been–punching those holes.
On September 12, 2016 at 3:49 pm, Fred said:
I don’t deny that weapons are lethal but I will continue to deny that something made by men has inherent value or risk. As you state, some things are good when used for good. The properties of man is inherently evil, the properties of guns is inherently rusty, the Glock 7 not withstanding. Smile.
On September 13, 2016 at 11:37 am, Sandydog said:
I’ll see your Glock 7, and raise you the famous Webley-Vickers .50-80. Smiles right back at you. I Cum Deo.