On Thursday, a state Superior Court judge denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against a firearms manufacturer, distributor, and retailer by families of victims in the Newtown shooting. The three companies involved in the lawsuit had called for the case to be dismissed under a law that protected gun makers from civil lawsuits, such as those brought by victims of gun crimes. Judge Barbara Bellis said while the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) may allow the defense to question the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims, it does not merit tossing the lawsuit altogether.

“At this juncture,” Bellis wrote, “the court need not and will not consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment theory.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs praised the judge’s decision as a significant win.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” attorney Josh Koskoff told The Hartford Courant. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”

The lawsuit names Remington Arms, Camfour Inc., and Riverview Gun Sales. Bushmaster Firearms, which is part of the Remington group, manufactured the AR-15 rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 students and six school staff in 2012. Critics of the lawsuit argue that the PLCAA was enacted specifically to prevent these kinds of lawsuit. Recently, Democratic presidential nominee Bernie Sanders drew some heat from his own party for defending the law, and by extension, gun makers. In an interview with the New York Daily News, Sanders clarified that he did not believe that victims of crimes committed with guns should be able to sue the manufacturer, since the latter did nothing more than produce and sell a legal product.

Other Democrats, such as Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) and fellow presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, criticized Sanders for his stance.

“I was against it, and he [Sanders] was for it, to give immunity from liability to gunmakers and sellers,” Clinton told a crowd in Brooklyn recently. “We can reverse this, and 92% of Americans and 85% of gun owners agree that we should.”

Gun control advocates would disagree with that statement. Advocates also disagree with the main argument of the Sandy Hook lawsuit—that the companies should be held responsible for making and distributing “military-style” weapons for civilians. Instead, pro-Second Amendment activists say that describing AR-15 rifles as “military-grade assault weapons” is not only inaccurate, but can set a dangerous precedent. As Sanders stated, it makes little sense to allow lawsuits against manufacturers of legal products when those products are misused.

Image courtesy Newtown Police

What's Your Reaction?

Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry

65 thoughts on “Judge Rules Lawsuit Against Sandy Hook Gun Companies May Proceed

  1. OMG!!! I never thought I could agree with Sanders, on this one I agree completely. Besides, where is all these numbers Hildabeast is coming up with. That c**t just out right lies about so much, I don’t get how anyone could be behind her.

      1. No No NO—she hides ANYTHING she needs in the course of the day under those friggin clothes she wears—please somebody help her shop—she looks like the ‘killer bees’ from SNL at times—holy shit

  2. Can I point towards this precedent as reason to sue the alcohol and car makers for the death of a family friend a few years ago at the hands of a drunk driver?

    1. Bars and bartenders who continue to serve intoxicated people can be sued and have been. It’s irresponsible, much like a company making and marketing military style assault weapons for civilians. You want to play with big deal? Sign up for the military and stop playing soldier at home.

      1. The bars and bartenders DO NOT MAKE IT——they are mis-using it—that’s why they can be sued

      2. Oh, by the by…none of these are military style assault rifles. Automatic weapons are highly restricted in America. Just because it looks similar doesn’t equate to the same.
        I am betting you don’t keep out in the country. You’re one of this city girls with a jeep in the concrete jungle, which is even a better reason to have a good semi auto rifle and hand gun.

      3. lol wtf. “military style” “assault” I see you are using your gun grabber dictionary. Guess what? all guns are meant to kill. Military and assault are meaningless terms.

        By your logic SUVs and large vehicles should be banned because they are “military” and “assault” type vehicles.

    2. Or that of a golf club maker? Just ask Tiger Woods whose ex-wife beat him with a golf club.

  3. I am saddened for the families that lost their children to such a horrific act that Adam Lanza carried out, but the gun manufacturers are not at fault. The family of Adam Lanza should be entirely responsible for his actions. Remington Arms, Camfour Inc., and Riverview Gun Sales. Bushmaster Firearms, which is part of the Remington group, do not have a clue what someone is going to do with a gun that they purchase. I think that it should go one step further to the Supreme Court and over ride the Superior courts decision.

    1. This will be over turned on appeal. The judge was improper in allowing it to preceed.

    2. An irresponsible mother allowed a mentally ill child access to firearms. How is this anyone’s fault other than the mother?

      1. NO it wasn’t an irresponsible mother who allowed a mentally ill child access to firearms. Read up on it! Adam Lanza stole the guns after killing his mother!!!

      2. You read up on it. The guns were stirred in a safe. The mentally ill child had the combination. And let’s not forget the idiocy of teaching the mentally ill how to use firearms. I mean what could go wrong right?
        If Adam hadn’t murdered his mother, she’d be spending the rest of her life in jail for her actions.

      3. I have. and the end result was that he STOLE the guns after he murdered his mother not before. Even if he had the combination, him murdering his mother and opening up a gun safe to retrieve guns, is THEFT!!!! What were her actions??? Teaching her children how to shoot a gun??? Nothing illegal about that! I’ve taught all of mine how to shoot! If he hadn’t murdered his mother, he would not have had access to the guns! She did every thing legal as in locking the guns away in a safe. What would make you think that someone would allow access to the gun safe if they know what the mental stability of the man(cause he was 20 years old, not a child) is? Killing her and stealing the guns was the only way he could have pulled it off! Still all in all, what he did is atrocious by any means. My heart feels for the families who suffered such a tragic loss of their children.

      4. Wow, you really want to absolve the mother of her responsibility don’t you. Any way you want to slice it, she at fault. Sorry you try to make it otherwise and you verbose attempts to deflect blame are amusing but the simple facts are that mom had guns, taught a mentally deranged child how to operate them and shoot, let him have the combination to the gun vault. You wouldn’t even had an argument if she hadn’t been attempting to have him committed. The very least she could have done was change the safe combo and move most of the guns somewhere safe.
        The mother, thru her neglect and bad judgement, lossened a rabid feral child armed with weapons on the public.
        How Dobie know she should have done something? Because she was trying to have committed to an asylum there buckaroo.

  4. then they better go after the maker of the pressure cookers in boston, the fertilizer co. in oklahoma, the jets in new york.

  5. Uh, oh…Look out car companies you’ll be next! What about the makers of alcohol containing beverages, and medicines. All of these can be misused and cause death to people, the lawyers are lining up. IMHO the judge should be dismissed.

  6. what happened was a crime beyond description, any one e involved deserves to get the harshest punishment possible, but please remember the gun did not kill any one the person shooting the weapon is the killer. there are many lawfull gun owners who obey the law and have that right. guns dont kill people people kill people. might as well ban hammers, knifes, rope, boards cars etc. more people are killed by drunk drivers than guns two times over. how many of you have ever had a beer with lunch or a few drinks with dinner and driven home, think about who really is to blame for the horrible things that have happened. i bet lawyers are the main ones talking clients into suing companies, they only look out for them selfs and see dollar signs, i think shakespear was right. get rid of the lawyers and the country would be a better place. dont harm them, give them another job to occupy thier time.

    1. Here’s the thing:
      The person involved in the shooting killed themselves, so they already got the death penalty- just didn’t need to go through all the lengthy court processes.

      I put some of the blame on these pill happy doctors that would rather just toss a few pills at a problem and hope it goes away. If you look at some of the side effects of some of those meds, you see the increased risk of violent/suicidal thoughts and tendencies.

  7. If they win this law suit, no company will be willing to sell assault rifles to civilians. All firearms will be next.

      1. It doesn’t matter that I know what you meant. Your description was either false due to ignorance on the topic or deliberately disingenuous. There is a HUGE difference.

      2. Well said. The distinction needs to be made over and over to educate the public

      1. Any rifle that can be used to commit assault! The 22 lr rifle Adam Lanza used to kill his mother could even be described as an assault rifle because that was his intention, to assault someone!!

  8. I wonder what Hillary would say if the taxpayers in the US sued the banksters, for their negligence and subsequent payout by a cheerleading treasury

  9. if thats the case im suing ford for all the wrecks their vehicles have been involved in and their dealerships not to mention the sales man sounds obserd does it not smdh

    1. and i do believe in the manuals it states not to point at anything your not willing to destroy one of the golden rules not manufacturers fault this case is obserd anyway you cut it . recently my uncle was gunned down i dont blame the gun what so ever i blame the buy that was to lazy to work who tried to rob him for pulling the trigger gun didnt get there by itself and damn sure didnt say give me your money or ill kill you

  10. Almost all mass murderers in recent times were either under the influence or just coming off of psychiatric medications with labeled side effects of aggressive behavior and homicidal or suicidal ideation. Drug companies and psychiatrists are the ones who should be getting sued — if we want the problem actually addressed, that is.

    1. Ben, Adam should have been on anti psychotics. Adam is the poster child for giving the mentally illedication. His mother was attempting to have him committed but couldnt get the judge to sign off on it. Adam was mentally ill and the medication had nothing to do with it. However, there are many that shouldn’t be on these drugs that shouldn’t be and that IS causing problems.

  11. The great pussification of America. Soon the one world government will protect us all from everything.

      1. sharia law? huh? You do know that muslim extremism is a smoke screen for the true tyrants right? You have a greater chance of being killed by a bee than a muslim terrorist.

  12. The plaintiffs only have a case if the firearm malfunctioned and did not operate properly, i.e. failed to fire, thus no one was killed and no injuries. The only “defectives” in this case were the shooter and his family! FYI: This judge is an activist moron!

  13. A real trial would bring out the fact that the whole thing is a false flag attack hoax. It never happened. It was a staged event and unless this trial is part of the lie, the truth would come out. No deaths. No murders. No real school, just actors. Watch “We need to talk about Sandyhook “

      1. Hey, Elvis and Michael Jackson live right down the street from me. The block parties are a blast

      2. Some crazy people do but they are as mentally ill as Adam was

  14. So dose that say that the victims of 911 can sue the American Airlines, for what happened I gess we can release the terrorist and now put their Airline executive in jail.

  15. That’s the first intelligent thing I’ve heard come out of Bernie’s mouth! And I don’t know where in hell Hillbillery came up with those figures!?!
    Here, I’ll make my own statement…99.9% of reasonably intelligent people agree that she is stupid & needs to be in prison.

  16. This lawsuit is bull crap. Typical libs. Can’t blame the retard behind the trigger. Oh f!@k no. These guns just jump up in the air and go off themselves. Just a bunch of greedy gold diggers now. Money won’t buy them, or any one else the happiness the greedy asses expect.

  17. Are they now going to sue car manufacturers for accidents caused by drunk drivers. Lanza was a mental case. He could have killed that many with a car.

    1. Someone gets killed with a knife: sue the knife maker. Someone gets killed with a hammer: sue the hammer manufacturer. Someone gets killed with a machete: sue the manufacturer. Baseball bat? Sue the manufacturer. Ridiculous.

  18. Bullshit Hillary Clinton is wrong the Majority of Americans do not agree, she is lieing to make it look that way.

  19. truth be told, f there were NO guns, knives, swords, etc. man would kill one another with stones. RE: Cain and Able. just sayin

  20. Silly. They should hold the educators responsible for not teaching him. Also sue the milk company for a possible vitamin imbalance

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *