SCOTUS Declines To Intervene in Lawsuit Blaming Gun Maker for Sandy Hook Massacre

The plaintiffs now have to prove that Remington's advertising was not only "unfair or deceptive" but "a proximate cause" of the attack.


The Supreme Court yesterday declined to intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to hold Remington Arms responsible for the 2012 shooting that killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. That decision means the plaintiffs—a survivor of the attack and relatives of nine people murdered at the school—can try to prove in state court that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used by the perpetrator, Adam Lanza, in a way that emphasized its "militaristic and assaultive qualities."

The CUTPA claim was the one cause of action left standing by the Connecticut Supreme Court last March, when it rejected a breathtakingly broad understanding of "negligent entrustment" that would make any supplier of military-style rifles liable for crimes committed with them. Under CUTPA, people can seek damages for injuries caused by "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce."

Both theories were attempts to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 federal law that generally protects gun manufacturers and distributors from liability for criminal uses of their products. The CUTPA claim is based on one of the exceptions made by the PLCAA, which allows lawsuits alleging that "a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought."

The question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, which it decided not to consider at this point, is whether that exception "encompasses alleged violations of broad, generally applicable state statutes" like CUTPA. Remington and briefs supporting its position argue that the phrase "statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product" should be read to mean a firearm-specific law. They note that both examples mentioned in the PLCAA involve such laws, and they cite legislative history indicating that Congress intended to block lawsuits like this one.

"The lawsuits the PLCAA was enacted to address commonly included claims of negligent, unfair, or deceptive advertising, as well as claims under state unfair trade
practices statutes," Remington notes in its Supreme Court brief. "During the debates, Senator [Orrin] Hatch specifically criticized lawsuits 'citing deceptive marketing' and 'claim[ing] that sellers give the false impression that gun ownership enhances personal safety.'"

The plaintiffs, by contrast, argue that "statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product" means any law that could be applied to firearms. Their interpretation was endorsed by the Connecticut Supreme Court, which disagreed on that point with two federal appeals courts.

In the 2009 case Ileto v. Glock, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded that "Congress had in mind…statutes that regulate manufacturing, importing, selling, marketing, and using firearms or that regulate the firearms industry," as opposed to "general tort theories that happened to have been codified by a given jurisdiction." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allowed for a somewhat broader understanding of the exception in the 2008 case City of New York v. Beretta, saying it might include "a statute of general applicability" that does not explicitly mention firearms. But the court warned that reading "applicable" to mean "capable of being applied" would allow the exception to "swallow the statute."

In a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case, the National Rifle Association likewise warns that "the exception allowed by the Connecticut Supreme Court will swallow the [PLCAA] rule nationwide." It notes that "many other states" have laws similar or identical to CUTPA, "any one of which can now be used to circumvent national policy if the decision below is not corrected." The result, it says, will be precisely the sort of frivolous but expensive litigation that Congress saw as a threat to the Second Amendment.

"Exempting Respondents' lawsuit from PLCAA's immunity will result in a de facto ban on manufacturing or selling firearms, effectively preventing law-abiding Americans from purchasing constitutionally protected instruments," the NRA says. "This ban eventually will grow to encompass the sale of virtually every firearm in nearly every jurisdiction. Imposing what is effectively a company-killing level of liability cannot be squared with the basic policy judgments that underlie the Second Amendment. The right to acquire firearms is meaningless if the industry that provides firearms is litigated out of existence."

Then again, if this lawsuit ultimately fails, any flurry of litigation it inspires may be sparse and brief. The plaintiffs still have to prove that Remington's marketing was not only "unfair or deceptive" under CUTPA but also, per the PLCAA, "a proximate cause" of the Sandy Hook massacre. The Connecticut Supreme Court also applies a proximity requirement to CUTPA claims.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case, notes that the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that Lanza or his mother, who bought the rifle he used, was "influenced in any way by any advertisement," let alone that advertising precipitated the mass shooting or made it deadlier. As the Connecticut Supreme Court itself observed while allowing the lawsuit to proceed, "proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task."

NEXT: Judge Rules Feds Need Reasonable Suspicion Before Searching Tech Devices at the Border

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shouldn’t this all be irrelevant considering that the kid’s mom bought the gun?

    1. Hihn baiting? Really?

    2. Giving what I’ve heard of the situation I find it at least possible that she intentionally raised him to become a psycho killer. At which point pre-buying his tools makes some sense.

      1. Psycho killer, qu’est-ce que c’est?

        1. i hate people when they’re not polite.

      2. That’s what Stanley Ann Dunham was aiming for. Where did she go wrong?

        1. She went wrong by punishing us with her baby.

    3. Heck, it should be irrelevant considering that the kid pulled the trigger. What do you want, sanity?

    4. And then he murdered her to steal her guns?

  2. Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used by the perpetrator, Adam Lanza, in a way that emphasized its “militaristic and assaultive qualities.”

    That’s some hella advertising if it can convince you to kill your mother and steal her gun. AirJordan-level.

    1. Have you seen the instruction manual/warning sheet that comes with most new firearms?

      I suppose they should add a line about not murdering your parents.

    2. You clearly haven’t met his mother.

    3. gotta be the gun, Money.

  3. …would make any supplier of military-style rifles liable for crimes committed with them.

    Then sue his mother.

    1. Nah, sue the shooter in his capacity of self-supplier, considering he stole the gun. Oh wait, theft is already illegal.

      1. Fake news. If there was a law against theft, nobody would steal.


    2. His mother was the first one he killed. Have fun trying to serve her with a summons.

      1. You just have to attest giving it to her, she doesn’t have to acknowledge receipt.

        1. All you need is someone to say they overheard a conversation that may have involved a receipt.

      2. Uh…didn’t think I had to explain that part.

      3. Given that she is dead, how do they establish that the marketing of the “militaristic or assaultive qualities” motivated her to buy it? Or will that just be presumed for anyone who purchased one?

        From what I recall she reportedly got into this as a way to engage her autistic son in a joint activity; will her presumed motivation then be transferred to he equally dead son who killed her for it?

  4. “Then again, if this lawsuit ultimately fails, any flurry of litigation it inspires may be sparse and brief.”

    It appears you don’t quite understand the lawfare campaign that inspired the Lawful Commerce act.

    They wouldn’t have minded winning the lawsuits, but the actual plan was to bankrupt the industry with litigation costs even if they lost every single lawsuit.

    They don’t need this sort of lawsuit to be successful to pursue their goals. They just need it to be permitted.

    1. This. They don’t have to prove anything, they just have to draw it out long enough to crush the opponent under legal fees.

      1. They don’t have to prove anything, they just have to draw it out long enough to crush the opponent under legal fees.

        Reason number 999 for a Loser Pays system.

  5. I’d like to see the add that said go kill people. isn’t that part of their complaint that the adds were miss leading or dog whistling to kill or something like that

    1. isn’t that part of their complaint that the adds were miss leading or dog whistling to kill or something like that

      That’s the claim – i.e. that they violated the laws governing the way they advertise. I don’t think anyone is confident it will stand up in court. All this decision does is allow them to go forward and try to make the argument.

  6. Like so many other legal ills, you could go a long way towards preventing such bullshit with loser pays. Why we still have each party pay their own bill is beyond me.

    If you have a good case, especially against deep pockets, loser pays would also really help poor people, because lawyers could make their own judgement as to likelihood of winning and being paid.

    Why does our legal system hate poor people so much?

    1. It’s run by lawyers, and it isn’t in the interest of lawyers to discourage lawsuits.

    2. We have a kind of “Loser Pays” system in California already.

      “Loser Pays” is also a really good tool to use against poor people. When I worked for a small contractor, a larger contractor reamed us on pretty much that exact principle – “we’re going to run up thousands and thousands of hours in legal fees which we’re then going to come after you for. How confident are you?”

      The fact of the matter is that when you wind up in actual court, it’s generally because both sides are being jerks (this was true for my small contractor, as well). What I’ve been led to believe by lawyers is that the only time one party gets awarded legal fees is if it becomes clear that the other side is acting in the sort of bad faith that would have led most people to settle.

      1. If you lost your cases and had to pay, how much was because you had a crappy case and should have settled instead of fighting? If you lost because you had a good case but not the funds to fight, it must not have been a very good case to lose.

  7. Liberals think it would be a victory for them if U.S. gun manufacturers were sued out of existence.
    They don’t seem to realize that this would only create the mother of all black markets.

    1. No, they realize that, but that just gives them an excuse to bring the weight of the state down on anybody they find with a black market gun.

    2. Your assertion is that people, liberals, want to sue gun manufacturers out of existence. But is that really the case here. The plaintiffs are arguing that Remington specifically emphasized the military nature and killing power of the gun. Would this really affect hunting rifles? Would it affect handguns if the emphasize was on defense? The vast majority of people appear to want reasonable limits on and not elimination of guns.

      1. So what if they did? How is that a crime? And what is a reasonable limit?

        1. It is not a crime it is part of civil litigation and an a question of liability.

          1. Okaaaaaay . . . so what did they do that’s so problematic that it warrants civil litigation and a question of liability? And you didn’t define “reasonable limits.”

      2. I don’t think all liberals/leftists want to sue them out of existence. But some certainly do.

        1. I would agree with that statement. I have no problems with people have guns for hunting and sports (target shooting and trap). I have no problem with handguns for self protection. I do think all guns sales should require background checks. And yes that includes a grandchild buying grandpa gun. Sorry but as the Sandy Hook shooting shows, family members are not always the best at judging other family members. I think gun magazine should be limited to no more than ten rounds. I think defending yourself in a mass shooting is doubtful, but 10 run magazines at least gives a person a chance. I think military style weapons should be limited to target ranges and must remain on the range facility at all times. I would even allow fully automated weapons. Again provided they are never allowed off range.

          1. What you do/don’t have a problem with is irrelevant with regard to what is protected by 2A.

            1. ^^^ He’s right you know.

            2. In DC v Heller writing for the majority Justice Scalia noted in Section III of his opinion that there are limitation on the 2A. Specifically noting qualification on sales, limited access to certain individuals, and dangerous weapons. So I don’t think my opinion is outside the 2A.

              1. Starting to look like a Hinh sock.

          2. You are a fucking idiot and know nothing about firearms or the Second Amendment.

            And you display this on a consistent basis.

            1. Sorry for the mis-threading, meant for Moderation4ever.

          3. Which just shows the problem with “mainstream” positions on this issue. The Second Amendment wasn’t written to defend trap shooting shotguns or gentlemen’s dueling pistols. And how do you know 10 rounds will be enough to defend yourself?

          4. YOU do not get to decide what is or is not necessary or appropriate.

            In other words, go take a fucking leap, asshole.

            1. Exactly. We can buy what we want when we want for whatever purpose we want. Only if and when gun owners use their weapons in an offensive manner against people or property is there a problem. In other words, have perfectly good gun controls already in place. They are called laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc.

              Otherwise, gun owners are INNOCENT and should be left the hell alone.

      3. The vast majority of people also don’t mind raising taxes, as long as they don’t have to pay them. You failed litmus test #119 of true libertarian, that is, not recognizing that the vast majority is a bloodthirsty mob.

      4. Every “hunting rifle” has more killing power than any AR15.

        The AR15 is typically chambered in 5.56mm and was designed as a civilian target and varmint rifle. The typical “hunting” rifle is chambered in 7.62mm and was designed as a military rifle.

        In fact, semi-automatic rifles were originally designed as civilian rifles, and the only reason the modern stereotype of a hunting rifle is a bolt action is because after WWI the US government sold off the millions of excess M1903 Springfield rifles they had in stock….. all of which were in 7.62mm, specifically the 30-06 (thirty-ought-six) cartridge. Before that semi-auto rifles dominated the hunting market, but when the Feds drastically undercut prices with high quality modern surplus rifles it changed the dynamic of the market, especially as all returning GIs were accustomed to the M1903.

        It’s the same reason that so many choose the AR15 – it’s similar enough to the M4s and M16s we all used in the sandbox or the rock pile that we can all pick one up and be instantly familiar with it.

        So if “weapons of war” is the issue, the AR15 isn’t it – it’s never been fielded by any army, unlike the most popular hunting rifles, every one of which has been. And if killing power is the issue then an M1 Garland is far more dangerous as it can shoot just as fast and fires a larger, heavier, and faster bullet.

        But the issue has always been black guns. Blacks with guns in California when Reagan banned carry, and black guns today with people who fundamentally don’t understand them.

        It would be like banning the printing of books in black ink because most hate speech is printed in black ink – it entirely misunderstands what the issue is, even accepting that the claimed issue is in fact an issue.

        1. “The AR15 is typically chambered in 5.56mm and was designed as a civilian target and varmint rifle.”

          This is not true. Armalite, the company that designed it, tried to sell it to the Pentagon right away, but the Pentagon didn’t want it. The A in AR stands for Armalite, not assault.

          While they chose 5.56mm for the prototypes they tried to sell to the Pentagon, the AR-15 platform was actually designed to be modular. You can take a single lower and swap out uppers set up in different calibers for mission specific purposes.

          Today, the AR-15 is available in a number of different and interesting rounds including 6.5mm Grendel, .50 Beowulf, and .458 SOCOM

      5. As far as I remember when this mess first broke in the media, the now departed Mum nd her boyfriend participated in various styles of sport shooting and competitions. Some of those include the use of the Modern Sporting Rifle, of whcih class the Bushmaster falls. Three Gun compet

        ions are quite popular nationwide, even internationally, and the Bushmaster is one of the preferred rifles for that sport.

        AR type rifles are also legal, and used for, many other services. Control of larger predators and pests, (coyotes feral cats, feral pigs, gophers, rats, ‘coon, ‘possum, gators and crocs….

        They also are rather flat shooting at nearer ranges, one can zero a Bushmaster at 25 yards, and put the sights on anything out to three hundred yards and HIT IT. Move the target out to 400 yards, simply apply a six inch “holdover” and still put that gator in the boat. WHY do the prattling masses who fear the Monster in the Shed to the point of catatonic trances think the AR is ONLY good for kiling innocent people? IF killing innocent people were ALL It is good for WHY are there some fifteen millions of the AR tyoe rifle, and only about 300 deaths nationwide using ALLtypes of long guns (Great Grandpa’s bolt action 1903 Soringfield included) .Sorry simple maths will not support the charge laid against the AR.

      6. “Your assertion is that people, liberals, want to sue gun manufacturers out of existence. ”

        Because we literally have them on record saying that was their intention. Part of the reason the Lawful Commerce act got passed in the first place!

      7. “The plaintiffs are arguing that Remington specifically emphasized the military nature and killing power of the gun. Would this really affect hunting rifles?”

        A bullet from any of my centerfire hunting rifles (Marlin 336 in .30-30, Puma M92 in .357 Magnum, SMLE in .303 Brit) has greater killing power than than a 5.56 NATO/.223 Rem bullet from a Colt clone of the Armalite Rifle Model 15.

  8. Adam Lanza murders the gun owner and steals the gun. Blame manufacturer advertising. Progressive logic goes further off the deep end with each passing day.

  9. This isn’t a defeat for the gun manufacturers.

    Its the Supreme Court saying “let it get litigated at the lower levels before you bring it to us”.

    1. ^ This.

    2. It’s not a complete defeat for them, but unless the lawsuit gets sanctioned as frivolous, it’s at least a partial defeat, because they’re out the money they spent defending against it, and then somebody comes along as sues them again on only slightly different grounds.

    3. But the point of PLCAA was to say that it shouldn’t get litigated at the lower levels.

      The question was whether PLCAA applies – and that was litigated at the lower levels. As the article notes, there’s even a diversity of opinion with this state supreme court now conflicting with two federal courts. The Supreme Court punted instead of doing their jobs.

  10. What the fuck are “assaultive qualities”? IANAL, but can you really sue someone using made-up words?

    1. Damn right you can sue using made up words.
      They are the best to use in suing, because you get to say what the made up words really mean.

    2. “Damn right you can sue using made up words.”
      See: Assault Weapon.

    3. Yes, but like the term “assault weapon” it’s a tautological term.

      An “assault weapon” is a weapon you use to assault someone, whether words, sticks, swords, or rifles. So an “assaultive quality” is just a well implemented assault. We should praise fine craftsmen, even if their craft is a morally reprehensible one.

    4. Wait til they sue over “assault vehicles”
      _ four wheel drive / all terrain land vehicles
      _ inflatable rubber boats with outboard motors
      _ short takeoff/landing aircraft (bush planes)
      _ helicopters.

      Seriously. Amnesty International went on the record urging that international arm trade restrictions should equate civilian “brush shotguns” of the “slug gun” or “deerslayer” models to military combat shotguns and police riot guns, equate civilian benchrest or long range target rifles to military or police sniper rifles, and police riot control vehicles to military combat vehicles and apply all international restrictions including end user certificates to domestic manufacture and sales. Given that the Toyota pickup truck especial the diesel engine models are commonly converted to “technicals” or improvised insurgency warfare vehicles, banning anything suitable for military assault purposes could devolve down to camouflage utility clothing and “combat” boots.

      A strict reading of US v Miller 1939 would protect “assault rifle” AR-15 (ArmaLite Rifle Model 15) clones of the current US military issue M16 rifle and M4 carbine above all other firearms as most suitable for military marksmanship training.

  11. PLCAA exception: “a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State [in this case CUTPA] or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”

    So if I am reading this correctly, the cause for action here is that “by marketing the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used by the perpetrator, Adam Lanza, in a way that emphasized its “militaristic and assaultive qualities,” substantiates a violation that serves as the proximate cause for the harm.

    So Mrs Lanza legally buys a gun, for whatever reason. Then her son kills her and takes the gun, that he uses to kill others.

    Does this come anywhere near a working definition of proximate cause?

    1. It does for purposes of rationalizing lawfare against a firearms company. Not otherwise.

      You’d fail “proximate cause” just on the basis of the fact that the gun wasn’t purchased by the killer. It’s rather dubious that the advertising inspired the theft.

      1. And how does the jury determine the state of mind of persons, in this case Mrs L and her loony son, who are dead? How can they know that marketing had anything to do with it, absent any documentation [which, as I recall, AL thoroughly destroyed before he committed his heinous acts and offed himself.

        1. It’s worse than that, because an illegal act by another party breaks the proximate cause chain in every jurisdiction, so even if the advertising convinced her to buy the gun for the explicit purpose of having her son use it to kill people – and that’s what you’d have to allege to get anywhere near proximate cause – then it was a straw purchase which is already illegal and breaks proximate cause.

          So the only way the court allows that is if they use the “but guns” clause in the constitution.

          The purpose of this clause in the law was clear though – it was to allow for manufacturer liability for unsafe products so that if a barrel blew up the manufacturer could be potentially liable for it.

          1. “The purpose of this clause in the law was clear though – it was to allow for manufacturer liability for unsafe products so that if a barrel blew up the manufacturer could be potentially liable for it.”

            Yep, genuine product liability suits where the gun was so defective it was a danger to the user.

          2. So strictly product liability, not miss or criminal use.

    2. “Does this come anywhere near a working definition of proximate cause?”


      But that don’t confront Progtards.

  12. I would think the advertising was deceptive if the weapon failed to kill.

  13. >>”militaristic and assaultive qualities.”

    the adverts are not misleading when taken from the perspective of home defense

    1. Precisely, the fact that guns are capable of killing things is part of why I own them. I don’t want to kill things, just be prepared to do so in the event I’m forced to.

      If a manufacturer advertised the non-lethality of their firearms I suspect they wouldn’t sell very many.

      1. your testimony could help the Remington summary judgment motion.

      2. Slight disagreement, in some cases at least.

        I don’t care if my home defense guns kill an attacking intruder, I just care that they stop them immediately. It’s one case where stopping power is more important than killing power, and why some people run birdshot rather than slugs in their shotguns. A slug will definitely kill, but birdshot at 10-20 feet found inside a home will leave a hole the size of your fist (See Paul Harrels tests, or anyone else’s, on YouTube).

        A cousin of mine for example uses an ancient 45-70 as her home defense gun, even though she has a 338 Lapua over the door, just because it has better stopping power at short range (caveat: she’s in Alaska, so atypical use cases) and a larger magazine.

        1. Yup. gotta have somethin ta remove them pesky two legged predators. Some of them wear fur onesies, some don’t.

  14. But isn’t this just like all the lawsuits against the car manufactures for all the death, injury and damage from drunk driving?

    1. Well, it’s more like all the lawsuits against car companies where the drunk driver first murdered the owner of a racing-inspired car, like a Ferrari or Porsche, then stole the car, then intentionally drove the racing-inspired car through a crowd of schoolchildren because he saw an ad in a magazine that SPECIFICALLY made him think this car was the one to use in his murderous driving spree.

      Nobody NEEDS a car than can do 0-60 in 3.1 seconds or bust a quarter-mile in 9.65 seconds or top out at 250 miles per hour. They’re obviously designed to kill people.

    2. P.S. “racing-inspired” != racing…no real racing teams are using production vehicles


      “military-style” civilian weapons are not actually used by real military

      1. Don’t forget to mention the “race-ist” qualities.

      2. True. The really crazy thing is, the most commonly used weapons for hunting are, or were until very recently, repurposed military weapons. My Dad’s brothers all had 1903 Springfield bolt action rifles which they used for hunting deer, elk, bear, moose. I know one man who took a surplus 6.5 Sweded Carl GUstaf, made his own Monte Carlo style stock, and used that to take deer, cougar, elk, at ranges of 400 yards and more, one shot drop them in their tracks kills.
        Others I know have used surplus 8m Mauser rifles, others the amazing 7;5 Swiss Schmidt Rubin K 31 or K 33 rifles. Used to know a man, when I was a kid, whose deer rifle was a disused French military rifle, the legendary 8mm Lebel, another used in Italian 6.5mm carcano. The old British Enfield .303 Brit has fallen out of common use, but when I was a kid they were not that rare. They could be had for $25 to $50 depending on condition and who was selling them, ALL these rifles and their rounds were specifically designed for use as a military grade weapon of war. It is the reason they exist.

        FUrther, I’ve never known of anyone getting the screaming fantods when happening upon someone with an M 1 Garand rifle. This weapon was specifically designed and manufactured for the express purpose of killing large numbers of humans, at ranges out to 1,000 yards in common use. I know one man who is a long haul truck driver, manages to come into every one of rhe Lower Forty Eight, He will NOT be on the road unarmed. He often travels into or through states where his possession of a handgun is a serious felony. What to do?

        His “truck gun” is a bone stock CMP M 1 Garand. He can legally keep that in his truck anywhere in the USA. THAT is a weapon specifically designed to be a weapon of war…. and now kept against the day he may need some signficant took to use in thedefense of his life. Never mind the rig, he can always get another.

  15. Meanwhile, the psychiatrists feeding him Big Pharma psychotropics, which have Black Box warnings on them, citing “May cause homicidal and suicidal thoughts”… yeah, they go scot-free!

    1. Heaven forbid that anyone criticize the mega-schools apparently modeled on the federal mega-prisons designed to concentrate people in a hostile environment where joining cliques (gangs) is the only way to survive, where bulling or ranking is common behavior, where the fragile are pushed over the edge into suicide or drugged and abused til they lose it and go over the edge.

      There is always something to be scapegoated as the cause and banned and any defenders of the scapegoat demonized.

  16. My RAM3500 is tougher than ….. I just hope my son doesn’t kill me, steal it and go on a rampage down a crowded sidewalk

  17. So how many people who purchased this rifle went out and committed murder with it? Since there are multiple manufacturer of this style of rifle could that one have been selected just because of it’s price or what the dealer carried? This are questions no LIBTARD is going to answer in good faith.

    1. Nothing a libtard does is in good faith.

  18. These plaintiffs’ case seems about as solid as the one in the Lucky Gunner case, and we all know how that turned out…with the suing parents being left hung out to dry by the Brady Campaign lawyers who convinced them to bring the suit.

  19. Usually you sue the manufacturer when their product doesn’t work as intended, not when it does.

    1. Defective product liability should apply to a lethal product that no reasonable person would or should expect to be lethal – like teddy bears or baby cribs.

  20. Remington should demand PROOF beyond any reasonable doubt that any BUshmaster was actually used to kill anyone at that school building on that day. Ballistics testing to PROVE at least one projectile recovered from at least one of the dead or injured victims that day was fired from THAT Bushmaster.

    If they cannot prove that, no amount of advertising by Remington could possibly have led to the massacre as they have NO PROOF one was used to actually kill on that day and in that place.

    1. That would be a bit difficult, and quite the trick to get this clearly ant–gun judge to agree to such a requirement.

      Remington is not the original designer of the AR15 platform (that would be Armalite) and today there are dozens of companies making AR15 pattern rifles. Ballistics will not distinguish between different makes of AR15s. Though it make be able to identify a specific rifle.

    2. LOL! Their lawyers aren’t going to demand that because their lawyers aren’t stupid Sandy Hook truthers with maggot-ridden brains. Instead their lawyers will almost certainly stipulate to the facts of the shooting itself to avoid having any detailed discussion of the issue at trial.

  21. Lawyers Rule

    Another decision by lawyer-judges that amounts to the latest edition of the Lawyers’ Full-Employment Act. We live in a society dominated by lawyerism . Lawyers! Merchants of misery.

    The following excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever, is an alternative vision for the nation:

    Lawyers no longer dominate domestic society. The tens of millions of frivolous, parasitic lawsuits lie buried among other misdeeds of the past. The thousands of arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious judicial decisions lie buried with them. Americans justifiably can boast of an open and honest federal government of, by, and for an enlightened and worthy people.

  22. I see one bright, shining silver lining to this — I expect the plaintiffs to be unable to make the connection between the offense and Remington, if not at the state level, when it reaches the USSC. This will kill the whole movement at the root, rather than shading it behind a law which lets the hoplophobes claim that they are right.

    I also imagine a lot of gunmakers and ammunition manufacturers refusing to sell their products to government agencies in states where such laws have been imposed, citing the liability they would face if a suspect takes a gun from a cop.

    1. It will never go before SCOTUS.

  23. Reason has been compromised.

  24. I see the case is scheduled for trial next year. If there is no allegation that the purchaser, i.e., the killer’s mother, was exposed to Remington’s marketing, what is there to prove? Remington should move to dismiss on that ground.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.