19014677 – crime scene tape in the foreground with a blurred police car in the background at a crime scene.
Judge Barbara N. Bellis of the Connecticut Superior Court ruled that the discovery process may proceed in a case against Remington, a firearms manufacturer, for wrongful death and loss of consortium on Monday.
The 10 plaintiffs of the case comprise some of the families that lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting on December 14th, 2012. It has been 18 months since the initial filing, and a trial date has been scheduled. The case targets the manufacturer (Remington), wholesaler, and a local firearms dealer who sold the weapon used in the shooting on grounds of negligent entrustment. However, Remington argues that negligent entrustment only applies to the seller or dealer of a firearm, and that the person who bought the firearm (the shooter’s mother) did so lawfully. Judge Bellis still has until October to decide if the case will go to trial.
The AR-15 in America
The issue in the case is whether the gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting, an AR-15, should be legally available to the public. The Sandy Hook shooting has not been the only mass shooting involving an AR-15. In fact, the AR-15 was used in the Aurora Theater shooting, the San Bernardino Regional Center shooting, the Oregon Umpqua Community College shooting, and a similar gun was used in the recent Orlando Pulse shooting.
Joshua D. Koskoff, the plaintiff’s lawyer, stated that the recent Orlando shooting only reaffirmed that the AR-15 is an “unreasonably lethal” weapon. “We believe they [the gun industry] should be accountable to their fair share of responsibility,” said Koskoff.
The litigation challenges the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” signed in 2005 by President George W. Bush that was presented to the House of Representatives shortly after an assault firearms ban was lifted in 2004. This Act provides immunity to arms manufacturers and sellers when a firearm is used in a crime. The bill was opposed by many legal practitioners and professors. Sherman J. Clark, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, wrote a letter to lawmakers stating that the bill was a “substantial and radical departure from American tort law.” The letter was signed by an additional 70 law professors and also said “The law provides to firearms makers and distributors a literally unprecedented form of tort immunity not enjoyed or even dreamed by any other industry.” Notwithstanding this opposition, the Act still went into effect in 2005.
Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton, who specializes in gun litigation, said that “It’s always been a big uphill battle for plaintiffs to sue the gun industry. It was even before the immunity, and it’s an even bigger one now.”
The victory that gun-control activists take away from this, is that the case was not overturned at the request of Remington on the grounds of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” Furthermore, Judge Bellis has requested that the manufacturer, wholesaler, and dealer present documentation for further study to the court. In other words, the plaintiffs may have a chance of challenging Remmington for its part in mass shootings in court.
P.S. After the Orlando Pulse Night Club Shooting, the Huffington Post proved how easy it is to buy an AR-15 in America – even in Orlando. See the article and video here – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ar-15-orlando_us_576059f3e4b0e4fe5143fd4d
Leave a Comment