Sandy Hook gun manufacturer
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Remington Arms Co.’s attempt to escape a lawsuit brought by the families of victims to hold the gun manufacturer responsible for the marketing of its assault-style rifle that was used in the Sandy Hook college massacre which resulted in 20 deaths.
Remington’s appeal to the court of appeal was denied. This allows the lawsuit to proceed, which protects firearms producers if they are used in crimes in Connecticut. The lawsuit will deal with the issue of gun control during a time of fires in America.
The suit was filed by the household members of one victim of the Sandy Hook massacre as well as nine others. Remington was supported by many gun rights groups. The NRA called the suit “company-killing.”
Adam Lanza (20 years old) was the gunman behind the Dec. 14th massacre. He made his way to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, firing first-graders as well as adults, before shooting himself dead at the scene.
There have been a number of shootings in the USA, including one in Las Vegas in 2017 that killed one and another in Orlando in 2016. In 2016, 49 were killed in a nightclub. Many of these massacres have featured rifles.
Due to Republican opposition, the U.S. Congress didn’t pass any new gun control legislation after the mass shootings.
Plaintiffs claim Remington is partly responsible for the Sandy Hook tragedy. The Bushmaster AR-15 gun Lanza used – a semi-autonomous civilian version of the U.S. army M-16 – was sold by Remington to civilians as a combat weapon for war and killing human beings.
Plaintiffs argued that Connecticut’s customer protection laws prohibit advertising that encourages criminal or violent behaviour. Remington’s advertisements, even though they have been the “weapon choice to bulk shooters”, continued to “exploit the dream of an all–conquering lone gunsman.” They noticed one of the ads that said, “Forces of resistance, bow down.”
Josh Koskoff stated that Remington’s appeal was rejected by the court.
Koskoff stated in a statement that “We are ready to resume discovery, move towards trial so as to shed daylight on Remington’s profit-driven approach [to enlarge the AR-15 market and courtroom high-risk customers at the cost of all Americans’ security],” Koskoff said.
Unable to reach Remington representatives for comment
According to the business, it needed to be protected against litigation by a federal 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This was designed to stop a flood of lawsuits that could cause damage to the business.
This protects gun makers who violate the law market or sell firearms. Remington argued that the Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted the exclusion broadly when it allowed the case to proceed.
The situation does not directly affect the Second Amendment right of the U.S. Constitution to keep and bear arm, but the NRA informed the justices in an filing that litigation could put gun manufacturers out business, rendering the ideal meaningless.
The claims were dismissed by a state court, but the Connecticut Supreme Court revived them in March. This led to Remington’s attraction.
One gun rights case has been decided by the justices within their term. They are expected to hear arguments Dec. 2 from gun owners and the NRA affiliate in New York City about the restrictions on handgun owners transporting firearms outside of the house.