Published: Fri, November 15, 2019
Global News | By Blake Casey

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court is letting a lawsuit proceed against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

And I should add that there is a federal law that was passed by Congress in 2005 that was created to provide immunity to the gun industry from such lawsuits.

According to a report by CNN, the families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting are attempting to hold Remington Arms Company responsible for the deaths of their loved ones.

The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as unsafe as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public.

The families allege that Remington's hyper-militaristic portrayal of the XM15 runs afoul of a CT law that prohibits companies from marketing their products in unsafe and unscrupulous ways. Gunman Adam Lanza used it to kill 20 first graders and six educators.

One of the plaintiffs in the case is David Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son, Ben, was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting.

Remington Arms has a plant in Ilion in Herkimer County. But no court has yet addressed the question at the center of this case: Do Remington and its distributors and sellers actually bear some responsibility for the Sandy Hook shooting?

A spokesman from Remington could not immediately be reached for comment. We are ready to resume discovery and proceed towards trial in order to shed light on Remington's profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users at the expense of Americans' safety.

One Simpsons episode won't feature on Disney+
Disney + has really knocked it out of the park with its launch day line up for Canadian audiences. So as you are probably more than aware, Disney + officially launched yesterday.

"Nothing in Remington's advertising of these products connotes or encourages the illegal or negligent misuse of firearms", the group said in a statement.

Before entering the school, the shooter killed his mother in their nearby house.

The rifle belonged to his mother, who lawfully purchased it in 2010.

The case now returns to Connecticut state court for trial where the plaintiffs will need to prove that Remington's lawful advertising of a legal product violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), the only claim remaining in the case, and that it somehow caused Adam Lanza to murder innocent victims. The decision overturned a ruling by a trial court judge who dismissed the lawsuit based on the 2005 federal law, named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

In March, the Connecticut Supreme Court breathed new life into the families' lawsuit when it ruled they can sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.

The U.S. Congress has not enacted new gun control laws in the wake of the mass shootings largely because of Republican opposition. It has been cited by other courts that rejected lawsuits against gun-makers and dealers in other high-profile shooting attacks, including the 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting and the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings in 2002.

The case of Remington Arms v. Soto deals with whether Remington - which manufactured the modern sporting rifle used in the massacre - can be held liable in the matter because of how it advertised the gun.

"For years, gun manufacturers have been allowed to operate with near-blanket immunity - producing weapons of war and marketing them to the masses with zero accountability", Democratic Sens.

Like this: