CNBC:

The Remington Arms Company, which is seeking court approval of a landmark class action settlement involving alleged defects in its most popular rifles, said in a series of court filings that its critics have “ulterior motives” in objecting to the deal.

In one instance, the company claimed, an objector first tried to extract more than $1 million from the company to buy his silence.

Remington has agreed to replace the triggers in millions of guns, including its popular Model 700 bolt-action rifle, to settle allegations that the guns are prone to firing without the trigger being pulled. But the company continues to maintain that the guns are safe, and that the accidents and deaths associated with the alleged defect are the result of user errors. Several gun owners have filed formal objections to the settlement as a result, alleging the company is deliberately downplaying the risks.

Remington reserved its harshest criticism for Richard Barber, a Montana man who says his nine-year-old son was killed when a Remington 700 went off during a family hunting trip in 2000. Barber has been a central figure in multiple CNBC reports about the company since 2010. Remington settled a wrongful death claim by the Barber family for an undisclosed amount in 2002, but Barber went on to amass a huge trove of internal company documents and became a sought-after expert on the alleged defect.

Barber initially served as a paid consultant to the class action plaintiffs, but resigned in early 2015. Last month, he filed a formal, 40-page objection to the proposed class action settlement citing what he called “deceitful and misleading statements” by Remington and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

But in a scathing response filed on Tuesday, Remington said Barber only objected to the settlement after first demanding that the company pay him $1.5 million, and supply him with two Remington Modular Sniper Rifles—which we found listed for sale online for $21,000 apiece—plus 4,000 rounds of ammunition. In exchange, the company claimed that Barber offered to support any class action settlement, stop making disparaging statements about the company, and destroy all of his research.

“In light of Barber’s vexatious conduct, his objections to the class action settlement should be summarily rejected,” the filing said.

In an interview, Barber acknowledged making the demands but said Remington is mischaracterizing them in an attempt to deflect attention from the real issues in the case. He said the demands were drawn up by attorneys who no longer represent him, and said he ultimately withdrew the demands after concluding that he would be “making a deal with the devil.”

I’m not sure what all of that means.  To be fair, the claim isn’t that the rifle just “went off.”  It’s that it fell to the ground (with the safety on) and discharged.  That’s a little different than has been characterized in the article, and also to be fair, Remington’s own records indicate that the Walker fire control system is defective and has been proven to discharge when the bolt was placed into battery, discharge when the safety was taken off, and so on.

No one wins, no one has won, no one will win.  The only winning scenario was rejected, and that would have been for the engineers at Remington to force Remington to recall the trigger two decades ago.  It’s always a bad thing when corporate executives call the shots in matters like this, and it’s never a good thing when the corporate lawyers get involved.  Lawyers aren’t technically qualified to make these decisions, and corporate executives can only be trusted if they have been proven to be ethical.  In Remington’s issue with the Walker fire control system, that was not the case.  In matters like this, the engineers have to rule.  If my own sense of things down at the gun stores is any indication, Remington has taken a huge hit anyway, with the reliance on military contracts, the union-driven labor force, the Northern states based manufacturing, and so on.  As I said, no one wins, not even Remington.

On the other hand, the request for two modular sniper rifles and ammunition as a part of a multi-million dollar settlement is the most bizarre thing I’ve seen in a long time.  Why on earth would he make this kind of request if he had the money in hand?  It makes no sense unless he intended to test the rifles to see if the design flaw had been modified out of the system.  If that was the case, it would have been more discrete to have a third party purchase and test the rifles.

Again, as I said, no one wins, and it will be better for everyone when this goes away.  This has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with the dark underbelly of American corporatism.  I say this as one who has staunchly defended Remington from the invasive demands of the Sandy Hook Families lawsuit.  I defend when it’s appropriate, and I criticize when it’s appropriate.