National Shooting Sports Foundation Statement on Settlement in Soto v. Bushmaster

Editors Note: News broke this week that Sandy Hook shooting families reached a $73 million settlement with the insurance companies behind the now-defunct gun manufacturer Remington.


Connecticut, USA – -(

The decision to settle in the Soto v. Bushmaster case was not made by a member of the firearms industry. The settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the various insurance carriers that held policies with Remington Outdoor Company (ROC), which effectively no longer exists.

As part of bankruptcy court proceedings, the assets of ROC were sold at auction in September of 2020. Remington Outdoor Company, which owned the Bushmaster brand, effectively ceased to exist as a going concern. The lawsuit, however, continued against the estate of the Remington Outdoor Company, essentially ROC’s insurers and their insurance policies in effect at the time.

The settlement also does not alter the fundamental facts of the case.

The plaintiffs never produced any evidence that Bushmaster advertising had any bearing or influence over Nancy Lanza’s decision to legally purchase a Bushmaster rifle, nor on the decision of murderer Adam Lanza to steal that rifle, kill his mother in her sleep, and go on to commit the rest of his horrendous crimes. We renew our sincere sympathy for the victims of this unspeakable tragedy and all victims of violence committed through the misusing of any firearm. But the fact remains that modern sporting rifles are the most popular rifle in America with over 20 million sold to law abiding Americans and rifles, of any kind, are exceedingly rarely used in crime.

The Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in its Soto v. Bushmaster (4-3) opinion, “[T]the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ wrongful advertising magnified the lethality of the Sandy Hook massacre by inspiring Lanza or causing him to select a more efficiently deadly weapon for his attack. Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task.”

NSSF believes the Court incorrectly allowed this one claim to go forward to discover. We remain confident ROC would have prevailed if this case had it proceeded to trial.

Finally, this settlement orchestrated by insurance companies has no impact on the strength and efficacy of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which remains the law of the land. PLCAA will continue to block baseless lawsuits that attempt to blame lawful industry companies for the criminal acts of third parties.”

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Black Powder 26

Total BS! Money Talks and everybody walks! The sad part is that all the anti-gunners will rejoice and take this as a major victory! Just one more hill to climb for 2A freedom. Thanks to CF for naming the companies. Glad I don’t do business with any of them.


What bullshit. Justice should not be determined based on cost. My justice is not for sale. This should have never been paid. Was involved in an accident and it was an illegal that hit the car. No insurance, no driver license, no plates on the car, no tag in the window for a temp registration. So because the state of Oregone promotes that it is a sanctuary state and that illegals have rights to be here I should be able to sue the state of OreGONE for the repairs on the car and OreGONE insurance should pay. It wasn’t my… Read more »


you should OWN the illegal till the debt is paid then out they go

uncle dudley

With this court case in the books will the relatives of people who were killed in the inner- city shootings be able to sue the gun manufacturers whose gun was used in the commission of the crime.
Most of those weapons were stolen just like the one used in Sandy Hook; it was stolen from the owner.
How about the vehicle used in the parade rundown, can they be held responsible?
Where does it end.

Charlie Foxtrot

Do you know what a settlement is?

Charlie Foxtrot

The list of insurers includes Ironshore, owned by Liberty Mutual, James River Insurance Co., Chubb Ltd. and Swiss Re.



“…this settlement orchestrated by insurance companies has no impact on the strength and efficacy of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which remains the law of the land.” WRONG!!! The settlement and the mis-representation in the media does have the impact of swaying public opinion regarding gun industry liability for guns in public possession….a BIG WIN for the anti-gunners. Possibly the insurance companies were reimbursed by Soros or Blummershortypants for their contributions to a gun free America.