News & Politics

Judge Rules Sandy Hook Families Can Proceed with Lawsuit Against Remington

An anti-Second Amendment lawsuit has been winding its way through the system, brought by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre victims. The suit involves the extent of liability the gun manufacturers have in that massacre.

Today a superior court judge ruled against Remington, which wanted the suit tossed out because gun manufacturers are  protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This act holds that unless a gun malfunctions, a gun company cannot be held liable for how a third party chooses to use their product. A similar situation would be if Oldsmobile had been held legally liable when Ted Kennedy drove his car off a bridge in Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to her watery death. We hold people legally responsible who have made choices to act in a lawless way.

The anti-Second Amendment left believes that the only purpose of a firearm is to kill innocent people so gun companies should be held liable for making the tools of death.

While the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act generally insulates gun companies from liability, Judge Barbara Bellis said the law could be used to attack the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ claims, but not to have the case thrown out at this early stage.

I am not a lawyer, but why not? If ultimately the suit will be tossed out, why bother to proceed and waste time and money? OH…to waste time and money.

The lawsuit accuses the Remington Arms Co. and other defendants of negligently selling to civilians a weapon the plaintiffs claim is suitable only for the military and law enforcement. At a hearing in February, Bridgeport lawyer Josh Koskoff argued against dismissing the case, saying the lawsuit’s claim of “negligent entrustment” is an exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Actually, very few rifles are used in gun murder cases. Jazz Shaw writes over at Hot Air about how many rifles are actually used in murders involving firearms.

Of the actual 8,583 gun murders committed in 2011, 323 were committed with “rifles.” And that’s all rifles, including bolt action, deer hunting rifles and all the rest. The number committed with so called “assault rifles” were a fraction of that. When you ask how dangerous those rifles are, compare that to nearly 1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands. Enough said on that topic.

But the anti-Second Amendment crowd knows that it’s easiest to go after the scary “assault weapons” than it is to go after pistols, so they are making the claim in the lawsuit that there is no purpose for firearms like the AR15 other than mass murder.

One important purpose of the Second Amendment is that the people should be able to fight back against a tyrannical government. Therefore the idea that law enforcement and the government have access to firearms that are not “suitable” to the public is ridiculous. I’m not even going to address that the anti-gun left is the same crowd shrieking that all police officers are homicidal maniacs looking to assassinate minorities…with “suitable” weapons.

Needless to say, plaintiff attorney Koskoff is ecstatic. “We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” he said. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”