According to the CNN article here, Daniel Defense is looking at a lot of questions, especially regarding its advertising practices. Apparently, some of their ads are considered provocative (I have not seen them and the CNN article link is broken).
But what caught my eye was the below excerpt:
Question to the experts: I understand Congressional committees can ask whatever they want, but are privately held companies required to provide this type of information on request? On its face, this seems irrelevant to the incident, but I suspect this fishing expedition is influenced by the Remington settlement in Connecticut.
But what caught my eye was the below excerpt:
Emphasis mine.The US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform is asking Daniel Defense to provide information such as how much they spend on advertising, their gross revenue from assault-style rifle sales and other items before their June 8 hearing that will "examine the root cause of gun violence and evaluate measures to prevent further loss of life from firearms."
Question to the experts: I understand Congressional committees can ask whatever they want, but are privately held companies required to provide this type of information on request? On its face, this seems irrelevant to the incident, but I suspect this fishing expedition is influenced by the Remington settlement in Connecticut.
Last edited: