Judge Tosses Sandy Hook vs. Remington Case

From Fox News, 10-15-2016:


A judge on Friday dismissed a wrongful-death lawsuit by Newtown families against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre, citing an embattled federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.

State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the Dec. 14, 2012, school attack, in which a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle made by Remington.

The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine. Their lawyer vowed an immediate appeal of Friday’s ruling.

The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.

Advocates for gun control and against gun violence have criticized the law as special protection for gun makers. It became an issue in the presidential campaign this year when Hillary Clinton criticized then-challenger Bernie Sanders for his support of the law in 2005. Sanders, a Vermont U.S. senator, is now backing a bill to repeal the law.

Lawyers for Remington said Congress passed the act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.

But the families’ attorneys argued the lawsuit was allowed under an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others, and the judge disagreed.

“While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision, this is not the end of the fight,” said Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families. “We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening.”

Jonathan Whitcomb, an attorney for Remington Arms, declined to comment.

The company recently had been fighting to keep internal documents requested by the families from public view. The judge issued an order in August allowing certain documents containing trade secrets and other information to be kept from public view, but she said the order did not apply to all other documents in the case.

Besides Remington, other defendants in the lawsuit include firearms distributor Camfour and Riverview Gun Sales, the now-closed East Windsor store where the Newtown gunman’s mother legally bought the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used in the shooting.

Gunman Adam Lanza, who was 20 years old, shot his mother to death at their Newtown home before driving to the school, where he killed 26 other people. He killed himself as police arrived.


In a sane world, this would never have been a case, but with the libs’ constant push to blame weapons, this is our reality. If judges agreed with attorney Joshua Koskoff’s thinking, every gun maker and every manufacturer of any item causing a death could be held liable. Our courts would be even more congested with cases than they are now.

Of course the case will be appealed, because as is typical for libs, the attorney is looking for a judge who will make an exception in this case because of the type of gun Lanza used. Libs don’t have the common sense to know that all guns ‘are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others’.

The PLCAA was passed in 2005 in response to a slew of lawsuits brought on by cities, including New York City, stating that gun-makers were engaging in negligent marketing or creating a public nuisance.

Bernie Sanders isn’t the only one trying to repeal the law – Hillary’s on the same page and said last year “So far as I know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate.”

If she is elected, her gun control pursuits will make O’s sidestepping of the law look like an amateur.


Categories: Political

Tags: , ,

4 replies

  1. “So far as I know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior.” Thus spaketh the Hildebeest.

    However, the gun makers aren’t being sued about their own behavior. They’re being sued because of someone else’s behavior, specifically the criminal who uses a gun… well… criminally.

    Maybe the gun makers should post a disclaimer in the literature they include with every gun: “This firearm may NOT be used to commit a crime!”

    Hey, I think I hit on the solution there! Because that will FOR SURE prevent any misuse of a gun. Just like all the other laws and “gun free zone” signs do!

    Of course, none of this has anything to do with actual safety, or product liability, other than as a tool to further the American Marxists’ ambition to destroy gun ownership.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Eureka! You’ve found it!

      Kudos Brian, you have indeed found the solution to firearms being used for illegal purposes – a product warning disclaimer must accompany each firearm sold. That’s the ticket!

      I just looked through the instruction manual for my most recent purchase and while there were rules for safe firearm handling, nowhere was it stated that the gun couldn’t be used to commit a crime. That was an obvious omission, but one that I hadn’t noticed, and this from a major provider of handguns – Sturm, Ruger & Company.

      If muriatic acid for swimming pools have a warning label stating that it shouldn’t be used in cocktails and roofing nails warn that they should not be ingested, why not firearms?

      Now watch as even more firearms will be sold and stolen before the new mandate goes into effect and criminals will be forced to mend their ways.

      Liked by 1 person

    • That’s a great disclaimer, Brian – it made me think of the one McDonald’s had to put on their coffee cups – ‘this beverage is hot.’ Gee, ya think?

      Now if we could just find one for politicians…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: