Attorney Josh Koskoff had his work cut out for him when he took on the lawsuit of the Sandy Hook families against gun manufacturer Remington Arms. But in the end, he put together a successful action centering on a change in Remington’s advertising for the weapon used in the deadly 2012 elementary school shootings, that he asserted was apparently meant to target younger, violence-prone individuals.

Koskoff, the lead lawyer on the lawsuit who won a settlement against Remington Arms and its insurance companies on February 15, was featured in a virtual presentation in conjunction with The Humanists and Freethinkers of Fairfield County, Connecticut (HFFC) March 14.

The lawsuit, Soto Et Al v Bushmaster Firearms International, gave the victims of the families of those killed in the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School two key victories: the now-bankrupt Remington’s four insurers have all agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, totaling $73 million, and allowing parties in the action to obtain and make public thousands of pages of internal company documents that Koskoff contended prove Remington’s wrongdoing — and carry important lessons for helping to prevent future mass shootings.

Characterizing Koskoff as a lawyer who says the law is only working when it’s “for the people, and not just the powerful,” HFFC President Cary Shaw said that at the beginning the case against Remington looked “insurmountable” and most other attorneys believed “it wasn’t worth their time” to take on the case.

“[Koskoff] said he was devoted to helping people regardless of the likelihood of a financial benefit,” said Shaw. “He brought the lawsuit to completion in spite of unusual efforts by corporations to sideline it.”

Koskoff said he “didn’t know anything about guns or gun laws” when he took on the case, but “knowledge is power.” He originally started by helping the Sandy Hook families in the aftermath of the tragedy after he talked with a friend of first grade teacher Victoria Soto, one of the victims.

He helped the families with probate paperwork and other legal issues, but it would be in 2015 that a lawsuit to “send a message to the gun industry and insurance companies that they had skin in the game” began.

“If the gun companies think they are above the law, they have no incentive to be a part of the solution to the problem of gun violence,” said Koskoff.

Koskoff said that the origin of modern gun laws came in the 1930s, due to gangsters in Chicago like Al Capone and Charles Arthur “Pretty Boy” Floyd, who were “menacing streets and were a public safety hazard.”

“The country was in fear of the weapons they were using,” said Koskoff, pointing to incidents like the Kansas City Massacre and the St Valentines Day Massacre, both events of gun violence in which the Thompson submachine gun was used, an automatic weapon known colloquially as the “Tommy Gun.”

In 1934, the National Firearms Act was passed, which required the registration of shotguns and rifles with barrels less than 18 inches in length, and machine guns, and taxed guns like the Thompson “into oblivion,” according to Koskoff. He said the National Rifle Association was “instrumental” in creating the law.

The tax caused Colt Firearms to pull the Thompson off the commercial market, although it was still used by the military in World War II.

Koskoff noted that in Sandy Hook and many other modern mass shooting tragedies, the weapon of choice has largely been the AR-15. The lawsuit against its manufacturers was “not so much about the gun, but the principle of greed.”

While AR-15s — which is today a catch-all term for commercially sold, semi-automatic weapons based on a 1956 weapon, the Armalite AR-15 — had been available to the public for over 40 years, its use in mass shootings has been far more recent, said Koskoff.

Winds Of Change

In the webcast, Koskoff pointed to two things that changed which he believed led to its modern prominence in gun violence — a 2005 law that gave legal immunity to firearms manufacturers for gun violence, and the acquisition of a number of firearms manufacturing companies such as Remington and Bushmaster by a company called Cerberus Capital Management in the mid- to late-2000s.

“AR-15s have been available for a long time, how is this a recent phenomenon?” he posed.

Koskoff said that before its purchase, Remington was a “family company” that was “iconic” and had “deep roots in Connecticut.”

“It was built on the narrative of hunting and had been around for 200 years before it was bankrupted by a private equity firm [Cerberus],” said Koskoff.

The 2005 law had created a “perception that the gun industry was immune to lawsuits,” Koskoff said. “[But] the danger of removing the risk of being sued is it creates a no-holds barred approach to business.”

Koskoff said Cerberus was “looking for ways to make money on the Iraq War” when it “stumbled on the gun industry,” made up of “small shops like Bushmaster.” Under Cerberus, production of AR-15s went from 100,000 rifles per year to 2.1 million rifles per year.

“Prior to Cerberus, most firearms owners saw no perceived utility for these firearms,” said Koskoff. “Cerberus’ marketing campaign had a remarkable pay-off. They were trying to sell to gun owners who never felt the need to own such a firearm.”

In 2005, only five or six companies were producing AR-15s; by 2012, there were 30. Additionally, Cerberus had created the largest firearms manufacturer ever, which was five companies under their umbrella, called the Freedom Group, and also known as a group under the Remington name.

With advertisements from Bushmaster saying things such as “consider your man card reissued,” “forces of opposition, bow down, you’re single-handedly outnumbered,” and an ad featuring a silhouetted lone gunman, the marketing “was based on the back of military weapons,” said Koskoff.

While previous marketing on the AR-15 had been almost catalogue-style, with pictures of the weapons and prices, and advertising of the Remington brand had largely been of families using hunting rifles for hunting, the new advertising seemed to promote “danger and death.”

Additionally, he noted product placement in video games such as Call of Duty, where one rifle prominently has the Remington name emblazoned on it so that it’s easy to see while playing, was an effort to reach underage and teenage audiences.

“They wanted to expand the market,” said Koskoff. “They knew this would be played by children and teenagers, to create future customers.”

The Sandy Hook Connection

Koskoff said he made the connection with the video game marketing when he saw a photo of something the Sandy Hook shooter had done — taping two magazines together north and south with duct tape, for easy switching between the magazines, in imitation of a similar magazine in the game.

“This takes a rifle with a magazine that holds 30 rounds, and instead gives you 60 rounds with almost no downtime,” said Koskoff.

In fact, this marketing appeared to have worked well, as the gun used in the shootings had been bought by the shooter’s parents at the insistence of the shooter.

“While you can’t sue Ford for drunk drivers, this was as if Ford was courting drunk drivers as customers,” said Koskoff. “Why court people to kill people? Why court people who are more likely to kill people?”

Koskoff also characterized Cerberus executives as “Wall Street types who don’t care about the Second Amendment,” but “just want to make money for themselves.”

He then realized he had a case against Cerberus, Freedom Group, Remington, et al, because of the marketing.

In the end, Koskoff said the lawsuit was not about bringing money to the families for their loss, but about the impact on the gun industry in the hope that it will “exercise reasonable conduct in how they do business” in the future.

“We want them to do it in a way that promotes safety, not danger and death,” said Koskoff. “Their previous conduct shall not stand.”

However, during the question and answer session following his talk, Koskoff did point out the behavior of gun companies has not yet changed.

“The gun companies said they didn’t settle the case, the insurance companies did,” said Koskoff, who said that while that may be the case, the insurance companies will likely begin to “lean on the back” of gun companies to prevent future lawsuits.

While Remington and Bushmaster were the target of the lawsuit, Koskoff said that he did consider trying to go after Cerberus directly. However, it would have delayed things considerably because they “did not have enough information to pierce the corporate veil” and tie the holding group to the actions of its subsidiary company.

“They’ve insulated themselves from liability,” said Koskoff.

According to its web and social sites, the Humanists and Freethinkers of Fairfield County, Connecticut (HFFC), espouses reason and compassion, and seeks to promote humanism and free thought in our community. It holds general meetings, film events, book discussions, solstice celebrations, charitable activities, and science roundtables.

Learn more at hffcct.org.

Associate Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.