SAF: Sandy Hook Lawsuit Like ‘Prosecuting Car Makers for the Crimes of Car Thieves

(AP Photo/Julie Jacobson, File)

As John noted yesterday, the Connecticut Supreme Court indulged the effects of political pressure over interpreting the law when it ruled that a lawsuit against Remington Arms Company brought by the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims could go forward. They based their decision on the way that Bushmaster rifles were advertised.

The court over-ruled an appeals court ruling that found that in selling a legal, properly-functioning firearm (a Bushmaster rifle) to Adam Lanza’s mother, Remington was protected against frivolous claims by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The state Supreme Court, however, waived all of that away, allowing the case — and the attendant discovery process — to proceed.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted tenuous nature of the ruling and has issued this press release:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today criticized the 4-3 split decision by the Connecticut state Supreme Court that reinstated a lawsuit against Remington Arms over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used in the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting.

“This ruling strains logic, if not common sense,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court dismissed the bulk of the lawsuit’s allegations, but appears to have grasped at this single straw by deciding that the advertising is somehow at fault for what Adam Lanza did that day in December more than six years ago.

“This is like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles,” he added.

Lanza, 20, first killed his mother and took her legally-purchased Bushmaster rifle to the school, where he murdered 20 youngsters and six adults. The lawsuit contends that Remington’s advertising was designed to glorify the Bushmaster rifle and enhance its appeal to younger consumers.

Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the majority, said that the “regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the state’s police powers.”

“That is absurd in this case,” Gottlieb observed. “Did the advertising even remotely suggest that the Bushmaster is best for murdering people? It appears to me like the court was looking for a way to squeak around the provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that Congress passed in 2005. After all, the court dismissed most of the allegations, but now has decided that advertising might be at fault. That’s a stretch of credulity worthy of surgical elastic.”

“There is no evidence the killer was driven by any advertising whatsoever,” he said. “This is an affront to the First Amendment as well as the Second. Even hinting that the killer was motivated in some way by an advertising message is so far out in the weeds that it may take a map for the court to find its way back.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

comments

  1. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Yeah, they didn’t make the glass breakproof to thwart break-ins and or car thefts for resale and/or get-aways. And they didn’t make them so people reading .02000000001 on a breathalyzer couldn’t drive it.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    I thought there was a law against these lawsuits?!? Oh wait there IS😩

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Evidently, this law is as effective as a gun control law in Chicago.

      Laws don’t seem to matter anymore.

    2. avatar Madcapp says:

      Maybe its better to let this play out in the courts (that assumes the jury is sane), so people with insane legal theories like this will finally shut the hell up. Its looking like 2A related legislation is all going to have be sorted out in the courts anyway. All sorts of unconstitutional anti-gun laws have been passed in recent decades, and the only way to get relief is to take it to court.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        The reason the 2005 law was passed was because cities were suing gun companies not because they had a legit case, but rather the cost the companies millions of dollars and try to bankrupt them into submission. This case is also about discovery and getting dirt to use in campaigns for more gun control.

        I hope SCOTUS reverses this quickly and remington, etc. force the plaintiffs to pay for their attorney’s costs.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          simple solution..stop using questionable ads….but, of course.that’s not what they’re after..

  3. avatar Special Ed says:

    Does this open the door for me to sue the state of California for my piss poor K-12 public education?

  4. avatar D says:

    The attorneys in the lawsuit should be personally held liable for the defendant’s legal expenses then thrown in jail.

    1. avatar Aaron Walker says:

      …Along with the Political Activist Judge….Only when these type of “Lefty- Judges” are held accountable for their actions will we some change within the system system…..

  5. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    let the lawsuits begin…
    sue fast food and soda companies for obesity and diabetes…
    car makers for accidents/crashes…
    etc etc etc

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      What about suing the cologne, hair product, alcohol, underwear, car, boat, motorcycle, drug, soda/food manufacturers. They promise love and happiness if you buy their products.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Victoria,

        Even better, sue the cologne and hair product companies when a woman conceives an unwanted pregnancy. (The suit would allege that the cologne and hair product companies made men and women irresistible to each other.)

      2. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Isn’t cell phone usage and driving the major cause for teen driving “accidents”? Sue cell phone carrier or the cell phone manufacturers, why not sue them both!

        1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

          Someone did sue apple because their phones are usable in automobiles. It didn’t go anywhere but it did happen

    2. avatar Overshoe says:

      That precedents for all this nonsense was established years ago by Ralph Nader’s crusade against GM and the Corvair and the federal government’s extortion of the tobacco companies in the so-called tobacco settlement. The Founder’s belief in individual liberty and responsibility is long gone…

  6. avatar Von says:

    Can’t think of any Remington advertisement, or any other company advertising their product as being ideal for mass murders. We all have seen many ads, but none like that.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      And even if the marketing was an issue, the nutcase didn’t buy the gun, he stole it.

      Almost all the judges on the CT supreme court were appointed by liberals and it was still a 4-3 ruling. That tells you how weak it was. It will be reversed by SCOTUS

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      this stuff…”Renew your man card” etc…reeks of toxic masculinity and upsets the delicate sensibilities of the snowflakes who may view it…

  7. avatar JHW says:

    Follow my logic here.

    An advertising campaign compels a mentally ill, deranged person to murder the actual purchaser of the rifle – his own mother. It further compels the deranged person steal the advertised rifle for the sole purpose of driving to an elementary school, where the advertising then compels the deranged person to murder another 26 people, by locking the advertised rifle in the trunk of a car.

    Wow! It really does pay to advertise…

    1. avatar Edward Franklin says:

      The real winner of the courts whole argument is the advertisement in question didn’t appear till after Lanza’s mother bought the rifle. Even if it did we’re supposed to believe Bushmasters advertisement was so effective in promoting manliness and murder that a woman bought the rifle so she could feel more manly?

  8. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

    It’s all about the gun. It always is.
    Never about the coward chickensh*t kid who offed himself. He’s never gonna pay, but someone has to.

    1. avatar Mad says:

      As a follower of Jesus I believe he is paying for it and will continue through out eternity.the 🔥 of hell are real

  9. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    ..✋ Wait! My specially advertised 12 pack of toilet paper promised in it’s advertising that it’s special ridges and ripples would clean in one wipe…Leaving me feeling clean and fresh as a daisy! DOESN’T seam to be living up to its advertising! I NEED a Law Firm fast! Because I might be full of Shit !

  10. avatar rt66paul says:

    I am waiting for Victoria’s Secret to supply me with one of the models because they advertise their products with them. I’m waiting……..

  11. avatar Doc Richardson says:

    When I am hit by that drunk driver, I will sue the car manufacturer for not providing a safety devices to prevent the drunk from driving the vehicle. Even though they had no idea who would buy/drive it. It’s all about the money!

  12. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Connecticut Supreme Court sounds like they might be of the liberal persuasion,,, This case is a loser anyway,,, gun manufacturers are protected…
    What they need is a loser pays law,,, that would be the end of frivolous law suits…👍

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      they just want to apply financial pressure in the form of legal fees….

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        Remington has had financial problems, of late…

  13. avatar Mark N. says:

    I think Mr. Gottlieb pretty much overstates the impact of the decision. Let me try to explain why.
    A) There are four basic elements to any tort cause of action: 1 duty; 2. breach of duty; 3. proximate cause; and 4. damages.
    B) This decision addresses ONLY the first element, whether a duty of care exits. Nothing in its decision suggests that Remington breached its duty or that the breach was a legal cause of the shooting; those are questions of fact that can only by answered by the jury. This case has not yet been tried, and no determination has been made as to any question of fact.
    C)The determination as to the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury. Because it is a question of law, a defendant may bring a motion to determine whether or not he/she/it owed a duty to this particular plaintiff. (This is called a demurrer.) In deciding the motion, the trial court, as well as any appeals court, assumes that the facts as alleged in the complaint are true. (The time for testing the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint is for trial.)
    D) Under Connecticut law, there is a statue that provides that a seller of goods cannot engage in various forms of advertising that are, for example, false and misleading. Plaintiffs rely on this statue to argue that Remington’s advertising was intended to encourage young and impressionable young men to “man up” and buy “weapons of war” that “have no place in our society.”
    What the Conn Supreme Court decided that a duty was owed by Remington, and more importantly, that the claim was NOT within the scope of the immunity provided by federal law. That is the most crucial aspect f the decision, and the most likely to be reversed, since the essence of the argument is that Remington should not be allowed to advertise these weapons at all, notwithstanding that the arm in question was legal under Connecticut law and legally purchased by its owner. It is, therefore, a back door attempt at a ban of the AR-15 pattern rifle.

    As others have noted, the factual aspects of the case are particularly difficult for Plaintiff to prove. There is no evidence as to what advertising the purchaser/consumer r (i.e. the mother) saw or what effect it had on her. It is possible that personnel at the gun shop where she bought it can testify to any discussions had before the rifle was purchased, but we will have to see. Second, she was not likely the target audience for any advertising Bushmaster had in circulation at the time. Given these circumstances, it will be inordinately difficult to prove that the advertising had anything to do with the decision to purchase/. then of course is the fact that the consumer was not the person who employed the weapons illegally. When you put all of these factors together, the third element, proximate or legal cause, is not likely to be established unless the jury is biased and prejudiced, either as a result of their own prejudices or because of the inflammatory rhetoric likely to be employed by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

  14. avatar luigi says:

    Wow, that Palmer guy is a snake

  15. avatar GS650G says:

    I guess liquor companies are liable for alcohol deaths because of marketing.

  16. avatar Bob999 says:

    And this is another example of how deep state operatives embedded in government, in this case the courts, usurp the rights of the American people and further march us toward tyranny. This is not some one-off ruling or fluke in government. This is part of a larger conspiracy where leftist loyalists have been strategically maneuvered into position like game pieces on a chessboard. Our Constitutional Republic is being fundamentally transformed into some Global-Socialist Marxist style “paradise” that enriches the lives of the elites and subjugates the people. Ladies and gentlemen, we live in historic times that will be compared to the American Revolution and the American Civil War. Hopefully this will not be viewed as the time when the grand experiment in freedom ended.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Lol, no that experimented ended in 1913.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        the year jonas salk was conceived.

  17. avatar Pg2 says:

    Just remember, Vaccine manufacturers are the only industry that is immune from product liability. That immunity extends to anyone who dispenses or administers them. That should make you feel confident about the safety of these products.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email