Seems Like A Bad Idea: SCOTUS Ruling Lets Sandy Hook Victims Sue Gunmakers

Written by Wes Walker on November 13, 2019

The lawsuit against Remington is moving ahead.

SCOTUS has ruled that the lawsuit by Sandy Hook survivors against Remington can proceed.

Here are the details:

The justices turned away Remington’s appeal of a ruling by Connecticut’s top court to let the lawsuit proceed despite a federal law that broadly shields firearms manufacturers from liability when their weapons are used in crimes. The lawsuit will move forward at a time of high passions in the United States over the issue of gun control.

The family members of nine people slain and one survivor of the Sandy Hook massacre filed the lawsuit in 2014. Remington was backed in the case by a number of gun rights groups and lobbying organizations including the powerful National Rifle Association, which is closely aligned with Republicans including President Donald Trump. The NRA called the lawsuit “company-killing.
Source: AOL

Why do the plaintiffs think Remington has some share in the blame?

The plaintiffs have argued that Remington bears some of the blame for the Sandy Hook tragedy. They said the Bushmaster AR-15 gun that Lanza used – a semi-automatic civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16 – had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings.

The plaintiffs said that Connecticut’s consumer protection law forbids advertising that promotes violent, criminal behavior and yet even though these rifles have become the “weapon of choice for mass shooters” Remington’s ads “continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman.” One of them, they noted, stated, “Forces of opposition, bow down.”

Remington argued that it should be insulated from the lawsuit by a 2005 federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was aimed at blocking a wave of lawsuits damaging to the firearms industry.

The case hinges on an exception to this shield for claims in which a gun manufacturer knowingly violates the law to sell or market guns. Remington has argued that the Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted the exception too broadly when it decided to let the case go ahead.
Source: AOL

If there’s one thing that Leftists really love, it’s the leveraging of courts to beat the right into submission.

This could open a door to a flood of groups who would like nothing more than to destroy the second amendment by any backdoor way they can think of… if you bankrupt enough gun manufacturers, it won’t matter to them if people have the right to bear arms, so long as you won’t be able to buy any.