Where Your Speech Is Free And Your Comment Is King - Post A Link


VOTE  (0)  (0)

Connecticut Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Parents' Lawsuit against Gun-Maker to Proceed

Added 03-14-19 01:04:02pm EST - “The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in their lawsuit against Remington.” - Nationalreview.com


Posted By TheNewsCommenter: From Nationalreview.com: “Connecticut Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Parents’ Lawsuit against Gun-Maker to Proceed | National Review”. Below is an excerpt from the article.

The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday ruled narrowly in favor of the parents of children killed in the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, reversing a lower-court judge who’d dismissed the families’ lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington.

A superior-court judge in Bridgeport initially dismissed the lawsuit in 2016 on the grounds that Remington, which manufactured the assault rifle used to murder 26 people at the elementary school in 2012, is protected by a 2005 law that provides “broad immunity” to gun makers and dealers when their weapons are used in crimes.

Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the 4–3 majority, reversed that ruling Thursday, finding that the plaintiffs, which include nine victims’ families and one survivor, should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that Remington violated the law by marketing the AR-15 specifically to young people.

“The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers.” Justice Palmer wrote. “Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations.”

Adam Lanza, then-20 years old, used his mother’s legally purchased Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle in the December 14, 2012 attack. Joshua Koskoff, who represents the plaintiffs, has argued that the weapon was marketed as a military-style weapon and, as such, appealed to young, violent consumers.


Post a comment.