Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Gun Maker for Shooting

The Connecticut Supreme Court had ruled that the families of the children who were killed in the Sandy Hook massacre can sue the gun maker for the shooting.

This is a ridiculous ruling and sets a dangerous precedent. Blaming the gun maker for the shooting is a stupid argument. How about blaming the shooter?

Maybe I can sue the knife maker for the stabbing death of my loved ones. Maybe I can sue DC Comics because I broke my neck because I think I can fly like Superman.

This is a part of the anti-gun nutcases’ plan to bankrupt the gun companies and make guns more expensive for law-abiding citizens from buying guns because the companies are going to pass paying the court cases and settlements to the consumers. All it takes for these lawyers is to have a sympathetic jury who have no regards for 2A rights to give them a favorable verdict.

Can we kiss our guns rights goodbye?

Sue the gun maker for what?

Good. About time.

1 Like

In every communist dictatorial oppressive country, like Cuba, the people are disarmed. Forewarned is forearmed.


There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.

1 Like

A bit more context here:

The decision]( says that the families may pursue one of their specific claims in the case: that Remington, the manufacturer of Bushmaster’s version of the AR-15 rifle used during the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, knowingly marketed the gun for use by people to “carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”

So not to pull this card but, I saw an episode of Law and Order about this once (I know), but the crux here was that charges were allowed against the gun manufacturer because they did something specific that, in one way or the other, allowed the guns to be used to kill people. I think in the case of the episode, the manufacturer was aware that their guns could be modified easily to allow them to shoot more bullets, faster. So in this case, it seems like Remington is being accused of knowingly marketing their guns in a way to promote their use in mass shootings.

Seems like a stretch, but I don’t think gun manufacturers should be completely shielded from lawsuits and liabilities. There’s opportunity here, but both sides should tread cautiously.

Good for the familes.

Doing his job.

They are blaming the gun maker for how their weapon is marketed. Did you see the ads? They all made reference to their weapon in military terms. That is a far cry from marketing the weapon for sport shooting. I think they have a case.

What would stop families from suing beer companies for a drunk driver killing children on the road?

Apples and oranges.

Dammit, what have I said about supplying context?!

If you do that, how am I going to throw up a strawman argument that this will lead to the confiscation of all privately-owned firearms?

It’s exactly the same thing. Beer companies sponsoring race car drivers.

Well, as long as you saw it on tv and Sam Waterston won the case…

1 Like

Nothing. Or cell phone manufacturers for texting and driving.

Jack McCoy is my hero.

The question is whether or not advertising as described below promotes criminal activity which would make it an illegal form of advertising by state law. I’m sure the quote below is not the only example they will use, but it’s the one in the article…

“The Bushmaster Defendant’s 2012 Bushmaster Product Catalog shows soldiers moving on patrol through the jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles,” the lawsuit reads. “Superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag is text that reads ‘when you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers.’”

A “patrol through the jungles” would be depicting some sort of military maneuver, so I think they will have a hard time finding Remington guilty as it were, but juries are known to do surprising things and there aren’t many cases as emotionally charged as this one. The prosecution will have people re-living the event in as vivid a way possible.

We should sue automakers that use any commercials depicting people doing things that would be illegal on a real road.

All auto commercials must only depict calm sedate driving voiced by matthew mcconaughe.

Do you have a link to this “marketing their guns in a way to promote their use in mass shootings”?

So no products at all should be marketed with a military style or theme? That’s exactly where this is headed if this lawsuit is successful.

No more hunting ads anymore because those animals can represent people?

I offered NO OPINION on the merits of the case except to say they might have a hard time proving Remington guilty.

How the ■■■■ do you get no more hunting ads out of that?