Not to mention Remington will invariably raise prices to cover
this loss.
That aside, I thought the weapon was his mother’s. You know the mother whom he killed to obtain the weapon?
To me, it seems the plaintiffs had an impossible case to prove to be able to win the case.
Not sure whats going on, but it doesn’t seem like 1+1=2 here.
The AR was his mother’s; it was a stolen firearm. He kill her with it, too.
He killed her with it, too.
The sad thing is this now sets a precedent for anyone killed by a firearm.
Also the article stated Remington was manufacturer of the “AR-15 automatic gun”
It was not automatic.