In a case that could either uphold a federal law prohibiting legal actions against firearms manufacturers or potentially knock it cockeyed, the U.S. Supreme Court has “cleared the way” for families of several victims in the Sandy Hook school massacre to sue Remington Arms and Bushmaster. Does this mean the Pro Second Amendment forces are doomed? Not necessarily.
CBS News and other news agencies were quick to report the high court’s decision to not hear the case, which allows the lawsuit to move forward in Connecticut state court.
But Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, told Liberty Park Press via email, “While the high court chose not to hear the case at this time, I am sure that if a final verdict goes against Remington it will be back before them.”
“This suit is just plain wrong and should never have been allowed to proceed,” he added.
At issue is whether Remington and Bushmaster marketed the rifle used by Sandy Hook mass murder Adam Lanza in a way that it would “court high-risk users at the expense of Americans’ safety,” a term used by attorney Joshua Koskoff, with Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder.
Earlier this year, the Connecticut state Supreme Court, in a split decision, said the Sandy Hook lawsuit could proceed, but Remington took the case to the federal level.
But the legal speed bump is supposed to be the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), passed in 2005 by Congress during the Bush administration.
Gottlieb noted that the high court already has seven gun cases “sitting in front of them,” one that it has accepted and six others that it has yet to decide whether to accept for review. He believes eventually the Remington case will work its way back up to the court, so while this may cost Remington more time and money, this case is far from over.
According to NBC News, the Connecticut case “has been closely watched by gun rights supporters and gun control advocates across the country, with many pointing to it as having the potential to affect other cases accusing gunmakers of being responsible for mass shootings.”
When the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to continue earlier this year, ABC News noted that the plaintiffs “argued that the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the weapon negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.”
But therein could be a problem for the plaintiffs. Lanza did not personally purchase the rifle he used in the school shooting. That firearm, and others, were purchased legally by his mother, Nancy, under Connecticut statute, which was strong at the time and has been made even stiffer. She was also one of his victims, killed in her home before Lanza took her guns to commit the mass shooting.
Remington had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, CBS noted, contending that it should be protected by the PLCAA. That law was adopted to protect the firearms industry from what had become a series of so-called “junk lawsuits” filed by various municipalities in an attempt to hold gunmakers responsible for crimes committed in their communities by people using guns. Courts consistently ruled against these lawsuits, which other industries—especially the automobile industry—were watching closely.
In theory, if a gun manufacturer can be held responsible for a crime committed by an end user over which industry has no control, then it could open the door for car crash victims or their families to sue automakers for deaths resulting from DUI or speeding drivers, for example.
Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.
I have already instructed my family that, in the event of my death as a result of someone stealing a car or driving drunk, they are to sue the automobile manufacturer.
ABC News noted that the plaintiffs “argued that the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the weapon negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel”. An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle – Adam Lanza had a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle which is not an “assault rifle” and there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” unless you want to consider everything from a rock to a battle tank – Goliath could have argued that a sling was an assault weapon.
Ok, lost me, right off the bat! The two revolvers in the picture are NOT “Rugers”, they are S&Ws. Damn, if you’re going to write a sensational headline, apparently in an effort to get my attention, then at least do a little research, and get your FACTS right…
Gunrunner, you’re my hero! Good catch and sorry for the incomplete caption. ~Dave Dolbee, Editor
That top one sure looks like a colt to me
one is a colt!!
OMG, Bob, you’re right! I was so incensed about the writer not knowing what the hell he was talking about, that I missed that little detail! Well, so much for MY expertise…
Can you imagine General Motors being hauled into court, that being the result of an equally frivolous law suit. How about Ford or Fiat Chrysler, VW, Mercedes or any number of other manufacturers, whose products, long beyond the makers influence or control, cause injury to or the death of humans.
Well, if this case does, indeed, go forward, I doubt that it will be very long before some Ambulance Chaser sees the opportunities brought about by this Gun Control lunacy…
Sounds like Chief Justice Roberts may have been the one who determine not hear Remington’s case. Just saying
After news of this broke I have started looking for a blood thirsty lawyer to go after Ford and Dodge. My brother was killed by a drunk driver. Alcohol distilleries are also on my list. Why does a mode of transportation need to be able to go faster than the speed limit, and why are they not equipped with breathalyzers to prevent the wrong person from driving…aka a drunkard. Why do they have gas tanks that allow for greater than say a 50 mile journey, unless your a criminal why is it a big deal to stop and reload…oops, I mean refuel your vehicle? We have the technology to implement these things on a privilege…driving on a public street, which by the way a 16 year old can do without adult supervision. Screw with my 2A rights will ya….I’ll screw back!
I realize that this is probably too long a comment but allow me to submit something that I sent to a couple local newspapers (one owned by USA Today and which seems to have many anti-gun subscribers):
So what I’d like to propose are some “common sense” changes to the operation and ownership of automobiles and the manufacture of the vehicles themselves. To start with, there is no need for a vehicle (except for emergency/police vehicles) to exceed the 85 mph limit (the highest limit in the US) and all vehicles manufactured or imported into the US in the future should be so limited. Those who now are in possession of vehicles capable of achieving speeds of over 120 mph (in the future to be lowered to 100 mph) should have to pay additional taxes and vehicles capable of speed of 150 mph or more (to be lowered as time goes on) should have to buy a separate permit to own it. If those with the permit are caught speeding in any manner, they should lose their driving privileges. Military style or racing style paint schemes will no longer be allowed either because as many liberals have shown, appearance matters. In addition, a breathalyzer – this technology exists – should become standard on all vehicles to help limit the number of drunk drivers and,of course, a law needs be passed that holds anyone who would assist a drunken person in starting their vehicle responsible for any damage caused by said driver. The breathalyzer would also require being re-used every two hours while the vehicle is in motion in addition to time of starting. And, only while the vehicle is in motion, a “jammer” would prevent any texting from inside the vehicle, if it also prevented calls from being made/received, that’s even safer. Each day, roughly 9 people are killed in crashes caused by distracted drivers – equating to about 3,285 deaths a year. When compared to the number of people killed in drunk driving-related crashes in 2016 (10,497) that number is smaller, but driving while distracted is actually more dangerous. Texting and driving at 55 miles per hour is the equivalent of driving the length of a football field with eyes closed. Even more, it takes the average sober driver .54 seconds to hit the brake. For a driver who’s been drinking, add four feet to their reaction time, but add 70 feet for someone who has been texting. In addition, since the “chip” technology now exists, vehicles would have to be equipped with a reader in which a driver’s license, chip-enhanced of course, would have to be inserted in order to start/operate the vehicle. This would help insure that only legal drivers would be operating machines capable of causing mass destruction. In the event of an accident, the license would be locked into the reader until released by the authorities. Again, if a person were to allow their license to be used by another, laws would have to be written/enforced. While these changes might appear to be odious to some, “if it saves one child”…
Man, I like your proposals! But, you forgot one small item… there needs to be a “Panic” button installed for people who need to call 911, but their phones are disabled. Yes, EVERY phone, or communication device in every vehicle being operated, not just the driver’s, BTW, MUST be restricted, and the engine should be automatically shut off, when a device becomes active! After all, the snowflakes who panic whenever somebody passes gas in their presence need to have the reassurance that the Nanny State will rescue them, should they actually NEED to re rescued, and nobody REALLY needs to distract the driver, either, to include a TOTAL ban of talking, or gesturing, or anything that can possibly be distracting, no matter what the cause or issue… Otherwise, HELL YES… And, really, why do we need to stop with vehicles? We also need to Nanny State food, electricity consumption, money matters, such as, why does ANYONE really NEED to make a million bucks, or more, anytime? And Health Care, let’s hold these so-called doctors culpable when their patients die? That alone, would save another 50,000 people per year! And, college NEEDS to be regulated, too! Too much “Free Thinking” isn’t really as good for you as they professors say.! I could go on and on, but, well, you get the picture… WOW, this trying to relate to Liberal Progressive Socialism, normally found in Democrats, hurts my brain! No wonder they seem brain dead and are stupid…
Was laughing so hard it took a couple minutes to start typing – as far as the phones operating in the vehicles, I did say only while the car was in motion. It’s funny (well, not really) that a recent Johns Hopkins study claims more than 250,000 people in the U.S. die every year from medical errors. Other reports claim the numbers to be as high as 440,000. Medical errors are the third-leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer yet not one Dimbocratic candidate for President has come out to say we need to censure doctors or even to find out which ones commit the most grievous errors.
Thank you! Thank you! I will be here all night! Sorry, @Jimm, but, I had to do something to redeem myself after I missed the Colt revolver, snuggled up there with the S&W! Glad I could give you a chuckle, my friend! Uh, would that be cash, check, or credit card… hummmm? Yes, my other nom de plume is “Gunrunner”…