Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Connecticut judge dismisses Sandy Hook families’ suit against Remington

    Connecticut judge dismisses Sandy Hook families’ suit against Remington

    Remington has “broad immunity” under the law

    https://youtu.be/elHyLLVlK0U

    In 2012, the families of the Sandy Hook victims sued Remington Arms for selling a perfectly legal weapon in a perfectly legal way.  The lawsuit argued that the sale of the a weapon that has “no reasonable civilian purpose” made Remington responsible for wrongful death.  On Friday, a Connecticut judge dismissed the Sandy Hook families’ suit against Remington Arms.

    Reuters reports:

    A Connecticut judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the families of some of the 26 young children and adults killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in 2012, saying the maker of the rifle used in the attack had “broad immunity” under federal law.

    The lawsuit, filed in December 2014 and seeking unspecified financial damages, said the AR-15 military-syle assault weapon used in the attack in Newtown, Connecticut, should never have been sold to the gunman’s mother, Nancy Lanza, because it had no reasonable civilian purpose.

    Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis sided with Remington Arms, the North Carolina-based maker of the rifle known as the Bushmaster that 20-year-old Adam Lanza used in his rampage at Sandy Hook. The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected Remington from being sued for the use of its products in an illegal manner, Bellis ruled.

    “The present case seeks damages for harms, including the deaths of the plaintiffs’ decedents that were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon by Adam Lanza,” Bellis wrote in a 54-page decision. “This action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by PLCAA.”

    An attorney for the families vowed to appeal the decision.

    “While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision, this is not the end of the fight,” attorney Josh Koskoff said in a statement. “We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening.”

    Watch the report:

    The Sandy Hook families won a $1.5 million settlement from the shooter’s mother’s estate in 2015.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


     
     4 
     
     9
    Ragspierre | October 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Yep.

    A VERY good law that those do-nothing cowards in congress passed while doing nothing and being no different than Deemocrats.

    Heh…!!!


       
       14 
       
       2
      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2016 at 5:20 pm

      You do realize that the PLCAA was passed in 2005, when G.W.Bush was the sitting President, right? And, that it is a bill which directly benefits big business interests. It was also a Republican Congress which passed the PPACA [aka Obamacare], a mere 5 years later, in 2010. And, it has been Republican Congresses which have failed to rescind or amend the PPACA since then.


         
         0 
         
         13
        alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2016 at 5:32 pm

        Obamacare was passed when Democrats had majority in House and Senate and no Republican voted for it… zero … zip… nada. No Republican fingerprints on that one. As for strict liability laws… do we sue Ford and GM for drunk drivers? Did we sue Boeing for the 9/11 hijacking?

        To rescind Obamacare require cloture with 60 votes… that would require Dems to cross over… and then over ride veto by Obama.

        Please… get real…


         
         1 
         
         11
        clintack in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2016 at 5:47 pm

        “It was also a Republican Congress which passed the PPACA [aka Obamacare], a mere 5 years later, in 2010.”

        Wow.


         
         0 
         
         10
        amatuerwrangler in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2016 at 6:44 pm

        “It benefits big business”. Yes it does, as intended. It has already been pointed out to you that this “big business” built a lawful item, let it be sold in a lawful manner, to a person who had every right to own it. It was stolen and misused by another person, who may or may not have been eligible to purchase his own. Why should the big business be penalized, after the fact, AND would you feel better if a little business had built the item and marketed it?

        Sit down tonight and list all the things in your life that come from “big business” and imagine your life without them. For starters think of motor vehicles, television, computers, houses, .. I could go on, but an intelligent person would get the idea by now.


         
         0 
         
         8
        ecreegan in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2016 at 6:57 pm

        Not only was Obamacare not passed by a Republican-majority Congress, but it got zero Republican votes in the Democrat-majority Congress and Senate that passed it. Massachusetts went so far as to elect a Republican (for Massachusetts values of “Republican”) Senator to block the law, which led to the Democrats of the House simply passing the version which had already passed the Senate.

        (They did this by taking an already-existing bill and amending the text to equal the Senate’s bill, to fulfill the requirement that bills involving tax originate in the House. The Supreme Court okay’d this, which I consider BS.)


           
           0 
           
           2
          gwsjr425 in reply to ecreegan. | October 17, 2016 at 8:35 am

          To say that the Democrats in the House took an already existing bill and merely ‘amended’ the text would be the understatement of the year.

          The bill they passed, was completely stripped of its wording where only the title of the bill remained.


         
         0 
         
         0
        ConradCA in reply to Mac45. | October 17, 2016 at 9:30 pm

        The fact is that this law protects our right to keep and bear arms. If the progressive fascists were able to sue manufacturers for the “damages” their products do in the hands of criminals no company would be able to manufacture firearms.


     
     2 
     
     13
    Anchovy | October 16, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    The families should not have sent their children to a place that was not only unprotected but openly advertised about being a unprotected.

    When you enter an area that forbids the people within to defend themselves and others, you are the one that should be held liable.


     
     2 
     
     7
    mailman | October 16, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    How is this even helping the families of the victims? Surely all its doing is prolonging their pain for no benefit what so ever???


       
       0 
       
       7
      alaskabob in reply to mailman. | October 16, 2016 at 5:38 pm

      The minute the tragedy happened… the gun control people movde in to seal the deal. Remember Kubler Ross stages of grief…. how many times after this do the aggrieved parents say that only passing this or that bill will make their loss worth it. They freeze families in the anger/bargaining modes…. admittedly only a third of people in such tragedies pull out… a third in limbo and a third shattered. By putting them in this anger/bargaining mode… many who could have made it through are stuck.


     
     0 
     
     1
    Old0311 | October 16, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Why not sure the person who did it. Oh right, not enough money for their lawyers.


     
     4 
     
     0
    tom swift | October 16, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    Another factor may be that Remington has, in the past, lost some ridiculous suits. Things like some twerp shooting himself while cleaning his gun … and driving.

    While probably the least incompetently run of America’s iconic ninteenth-century firearms manufacturers, Remington Arms LLC just doesn’t seem to have its act together in court; so if you want to sue a gun manufacturer, Remington is likely one of the more tempting targets.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend