Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: New York Times



The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit to move forward against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The ruling allows the lawsuit brought by victims’ relatives to go to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications that they have fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing — and possibly damaging — glimpse into how the industry operates.

The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby.

The ruling validates the novel strategy lawyers for the victims’ families used as they sought to find a route around the vast protections in federal law that guard gun companies from litigation when their products are used to commit a crime. The victims’ relatives had faced long odds as they argued that the gun companies bore some responsibility for the horrific attack.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

[hlthe2b]

1. Excellent... I hope they send a BIG message.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. Yes yes YESSSSS!

[jberryhill]

3. "a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men"

And that's what the gunners here never seem to have understood about this case.

Is the maker of a product, in general, responsible for it having been illegally used? No.

If the maker of the product encourages, promotes or invites illegal use, or if the maker expressly appeals to persons with a foreseeable likelihood to engage in illegal use of the product does that change the picture? Yes.

[robbob]

6. What was this deliberate attempt to appeal to troubled young men?

Some kind of ad campaign? Just wondering...

[More_Cowbell]

8. It's in the story

"The lawsuit argued that the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack had been marketed as a weapon of war, invoking the violence of combat and using slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Such messages reflected, according to the lawsuit, 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."

...

"Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.

“Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, told the panel of judges during oral arguments in the case in 2017."

[ehrnst]

9. "Consider your man-card reissued"

The lawsuit argued that the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack had been marketed as a weapon of war, invoking the violence of combat and using slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/bushmasters-shockingly-awful-man-card-campaign

[robbob]

16. OMG

That is beyond disgusting. I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. “Tired of being pushed around by 5th graders? Get your “Man Card” renewed with a Bushmaster AK-47 look alike...”.

That’s an exaggerated paraphrase, but not by much (check the actual ad out). I hope those bastards get sued into bankruptcy. Man Card. Damn!

[underpants]

4. Internal communications YES!

I feel big tobacco all over again

[Faux pas]

5. Kickin' with gusto!

[dlk]

7. Thank God - It's About Time!

Let's hope we are turning a corner in the special American version of insanity with respect to guns.

[Maxheader]

10. Meh...A little push against a gargantuan gun society ...

Better than nothing, I guess...Would rather read stories about restrictions being placed...
Or restrictions on advertising and gun fairs...

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Due to the 2nd Amendment

and as I understand in this case, they argued something novel to get around some of the previous rulings that have torpedoed liability.

If anything, it will be interesting to see whether this case ever gets accepted by the federal courts and if so, whether they buy the argument or not.

[SunSeeker]

12. Excellent!

[BigmanPigman]

13. Yeah!

The House passed a gun bill but McConnell won't let the Senate vote on it so this is much needed good news.

[sarisataka]

14. I recall the lawyers

For Aurora families had a novel strategy to get around the laws with a suit and that too was supported by anti gun groups. It went forward some but then failed, leaving the families owing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the defendants in legal expenses.

Hopefully for these families history is not about to repeat itself.

[MadDAsHell]

17. I think that was with the movie theatre chain, and yeah backfired big time.

[lilactime]

15. K&R

[TomCADem]

18. A strike against Bernie Sanders's vote to protect gun companies from lawsuits?

The ruling is just in the Connecticut Supreme Court, but how will the ruling fare if it is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the ground that it is preempted by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which Bernie supported? Indeed, Bernie first won his seat based on his record guns versus a Democratic candidate. While this ruling by a state court is great, where does Bernie stand on the ruling given that it likely will be challenged on the basis of the PLCAA, which he supported.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/14/9533389/bernie-sanders-gun-lawsuits-democratic-debate

Sanders has long been criticized for his moderate record on guns. But he faced particular criticism from his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who has said the 10-year-old law gives gun companies legal immunity to lawsuits. (Clinton voted against the law as senator.)

The controversial law is the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits that hold them liable for dealing in firearms that end up in criminal hands. In 2015, a judge cited the law to stop a lawsuit from the parents of an Aurora, Colorado, mass shooting victim against gun and ammo sellers that supplied the shooter with thousands of rounds of ammunition.

But the law is more complicated than Clinton suggested. The PLCAA does not provide full legal immunity to the gun industry under some circumstances. And it's unclear if the law single-handedly stopped any successful litigation against gun makers and sellers.

The PLCAA passed in 2005 in response to several lawsuits that claimed gun makers and dealers were responsible for letting firearms get into the hands of wrongdoers and criminals.