Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125

Even though I was in the Philippines with my fiance during the show this year, I wanted to make sure we all stayed updated on the big storylines of SHOT Show 2025. So, I invited one of the best gun reviewers out there to come on the show and give us his view from the floor. David Blanton is a competitive shooter turned gun reviewer who runs The Humble Marksman YouTube channel.

He's been one of my favorite reviewers for a while now, and he was able to peruse the industry's latest offerings at SHOT. He gives insight into the major trends at this year's show, including integrated compensators and big company collaborations. He also shares the guns he handled that intrigued him the most.

Then Blanton explained why he thinks longtime industry standard-bearer Glock is in danger of being left behind. We also discussed the troubling trend of companies releasing guns that aren't fully baked.

I also talk to one of the folks that make this show possible in a Members' segment!

That's why I brought on one of the best gun writers out there: Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards.

Cam and I go through the 6-year timeline of the case and talk about how we got to this settlement. The case was filed in 2015 with three different claims for how Remington was liable for the actions of the shooter. Two of those arguments dealt with how selling the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, to civilians was unacceptable because the plaintiffs view them as "weapons of war." Those claims were tossed by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

However, the same court allowed the third claim that Remington's advertising violated Connecticut law and contributed to the lethality of the attack to move forward. The United States Supreme Court declined to intervene after that and Remington Outdoor Company filed for bankruptcy a few months later. That put the defunct company's insurers in charge of the case and they moved to settle almost immediately after that.

The nature of the plaintiffs' argument combined with a lack of evidence the shooter or his mother (who actually bought the gun) ever saw the advertising makes it difficult to understand the insurers' decision. I've offered up some explanation for it, but Cam had some additional insights I'd never thought of before.

He noted that the recent payouts to the Parkland and Sutherland Springs shooting victims may have played into the insurers' calculous. Those cases saw totals over the $100 million mark. Plus, a jury could be sympathetic to the victims and try to hold Remington accountable for what happened since it's difficult to find anyone else to hold responsible.

At the same time, Cam said the merits of the case seemed weak and people aren't inclined to blame a company when somebody uses their product to commit a crime. 

We also predicted how the settlement might impact the industry as a whole. Cam said insurance rates may go up and the success of the plaintiffs could inspire similar suits. However, he noted these kinds of suits have been going for decades already and the settlement did not set any kind of binding legal precedent.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Beto O'Rourke's latest zig-zag on gun confiscation.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.