Connecticut’s Supreme Court made the foolish decision to allow Sandy Hook families to sue the gun manufacturer who made the gun used in Sandy Hook. The equivalent of suing a spoon manufacturer after a heart attack.
“On Thursday, the Connecticut Supreme Court put the gun industry on notice: If you advertise your weapons as alluring tools for mass slaughter, you will face consequences—at least in this state.
By a 4–3 vote, the court revived a lawsuit by the families of Sandy Hook victims alleging that Remington recklessly marketed its Bushmaster AR-15–style weapon for “illegal, offensive purposes,” contributing to Adam Lanza’s murder of 26 people at their elementary school. The majority ruled that a federal law does not shield Remington from liability for wrongful advertising, permitting a jury to determine whether Remington can be held liable. Its decision is a stunning blow to the firearms industry, which has long claimed near-absolute immunity from such lawsuits. And it allows the plaintiffs to uncover private, potentially damning communications that will reveal how Remington peddles its lethal products to the public.
Thursday’s ruling in Soto v. Bushmaster revolves around two laws: the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). CUTPA is a straightforward state regulation that prohibits wrongful advertising—marketing a product in an unfair, unethical, or dangerous manner. The PLCAA, by contrast, is a federal statute that limits Americans’ ability to sue gun manufacturers and sellers. Under this law, the gun industry is largely immune from suit in cases when its products are used illegally.”
“The trade association for the firearms industry called the ruling a disappointment. “The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation said in a statement.
Legal experts said the outcome could have broad ramifications. The decision could give victims of other shootings a legal road map for establishing liability against an industry that has faced little legal threat for more than a decade.”
This ruling does not guarantee a victory but opens the door to suing the corporations for the tools they make as opposed to the perpetrators. The Supreme Court of the United States could knock this down if they so choose. I feel for the families but feel their anger is misplaced. A gun is a tool. It is not the tool makers fault if someone does not use it properly.
The plaintiff’s claim is weak, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon, it is a sporting rifle. The Plaintiffs also claim that the gun could be fired rapidly because it is semi-automatic, most guns have this function.