In what appears to not only violate common sense but congressional law, the Connecticut Supreme Court said Thursday that the victims and families of the Sandy Hook school shooting can move forward with a lawsuit against Remington, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to carry out the massacre. Experts predict that the case will now go before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeing as how the Second Amendment and The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act both hang in the balance of this decision.
Not to mention the fact that, um, this kind of liability could literally end U.S. gun manufacturing and sales overnight.
From the New York Times:
In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”
Lawyers for the families argued that those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire.
In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.
Op-Ed from Iranian Kurd: Handing Iraqi Kurdistan to Tehran Would Be a Big Mistake
Jim Jordan Sums Up Progressive Platform in Scathing Takedown: ‘The Left Hates 2 Countries – America and Israel’
Could Trump play hardball to prevent an MLB lockout?
Trump cuts $810 million in federal spending he previously approved
Kathy Hochul counts on Mamdani to rev reelection turnout despite GOP attacks
Dem Congressional Candidate Claims She Was Raped While Repairing Campaign Signs and Hid from Her Husband for Days
US Attorney calls out ‘loud-mouth’ California Dems as feds step in with Skid Row drug bust: ‘They’re lunatics’
The powerful way American communities can benefit from the new tech boom revealed by data center CEO
WNBA Suffers Immediate Downturn After Caitlin Clark Is Eliminated from Playoffs
Schumer says he’s not going anywhere, but his own candidates aren’t ready to back him
Mamdani demands Trump release illegal immigrant shot by ICE agent as protests erupt in the Bronx
Personal attacks, Israel, and terrorism define Michigan’s caustic Senate debate
ABC News Targets Trump Family, But Has to Immediately Delete False Story – Was Off by Billions of Dollars
California Medical Breakthroughs Bring In Hundreds of Millions While the Very Same Industry Suffers Substantial Job Loss
Evil Among Us: Watch as Satanic Prayer Opens City Council Meeting, But One Brave Man on Camera Refuses to Go Along
It’s hard to see how Remington could be held liable for “wrongful marketing” unless they were specifically advertising a weapon that could feasibly be used to shoot up a kindergarten. Or making some kind of “Hey, weirdo, this gun is perfect for taking your revenge out on an unloving and hateful world!” We’re pretty sure Remington did not engage in marketing of that sort, and so it is ridiculous to claim that they bear any responsibility whatsoever for what Lanza did on that fateful day in 2012.
It is impossible not to feel ongoing sympathy for the families who survived this terrible tragedy, and we don’t even have any particular ill will towards them for trying to seek redress wherever they can find it. Tragedy and logic rarely go hand in hand.
But that doesn’t change the fact that this sort of liability is outlandish, nonsensical, and in direct conflict with the Second Amendment. Not to mention, it opens the door wide open for manufacturers of knives, cars, pressure cookers, and any number of products to be sued for liability. Let’s hope the Supreme Court strikes this down, because it opens up a can of worms that could literally devastate American industry, to say nothing of our rights.
