Ever since a mentally deranged person killed 27 people in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, the victims families and others have been looking for someone or something to blame. More specifically, several have focused on Remington Firearms because bad guns! Today the Connecticut Supreme Court told Sandy Hook families that yes, they can sue Remington Arms. 

What is this particular case about? Well…

“The families argued, among other things, that the rifle’s manufacturer and distributor negligently allowed and encouraged civilians to use a weapon suitable only for military and law enforcement use.”

That argument pops up every single time there is some type of major shooting incident in this country. People want to blame the guns so badly that they willingly overlook the other facts in those cases or this one for that matter.

The mental history of the shooter and the horrifically unfortunate choices made by his mother played a significant role in what happened that day. As Deanna pointed out here, the Sandy Hook report makes it clear that the shooter had become increasingly anti-social and violent. Yet because she was SHOT BY HER OWN SON, there’s no one left to blame.

Which leads us to the lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Never mind the fact that EVERY SINGLE weapon used by the shooter was legally obtained by his mother. Never mind the fact that the shooter stole them from her. Nope. It’s the guns that did all this so let’s sue them and that will make it all better. Except that it won’t.

What is the Supreme Court’s reasoning for this ruling? 

“The Connecticut high court disagreed on extremely narrow grounds, treating it as a case of illegal advertising.

It said the suit, which seeks unspecified damages for each death, could go forward under that state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, a statute aimed at harmful marketing, in this case marketing not of the weapon itself but the use of the weapon as a potential tool for “offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal.”

‘Harmful marketing??!!’ Keep in mind that this ruling is essentially saying that the 2005 FEDERAL law protecting gun and ammunition manufacturers from being sued if their product was used to commit a crime doesn’t matter.

Furthermore, the court has just ruled that indirect marketing can be blamed. Even if it’s so indirect that we don’t even know if the Sandy Hook shooter ever read or watched any ads!

Ridiculous. Was any gun defective? Did Remington sell any gun involved illegally to anyone? Or is this really just another attack on the Second Amendment from a liberal court?

— Bob (@Bobsquestions) March 14, 2019

Yes. And some major judicial overreach as well.

Characterizing this as “marketing-based” claim is creative judicial nonsense.

— Bob (@Bobsquestions) March 14, 2019

That is definitely the case. But why use the marketing tactic?

https://twitter.com/FrankenCap/status/1106255674500091905

Yes indeed. Channeling AOC is not a good look here.

Again, the shooter STOLE the weapons and shot his MOTHER before going to the elementary school and killing 20 children and six adults. Having a court of law infer and imply that this could be the fault of Remington’s marketing campaigns is one helluva judicial stretch. Yet that is the reach they were looking for.

“Among the allegations in the lawsuit was that the gun manufacturers and dealers knowingly marketed the weapon’s use to carry out deadly missions against “perceived enemies,” as the court said.

Such use of the Bushmaster or any weapon would be illegal, it added, and “Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.””

Will blaming the gun and the manufacturer for what happened change the outcome? Sadly no. Was it the gun’s fault that so many innocents were killed? No. As noted here, the shooter’s background was one of obsessive compulsive behavior, a diagnosis of Aspergers, depression, and very anti-social behavior. The mother also rejected getting her son medical help for anxiety and depression, plus refused along with educators to directly deal with his issues.

Yet, blaming the gun and how it was marketed would make sure nothing like this will ever happen again. Right?

Feature Photo Credit: Scott Maxwell LuMaxArt Royalty-free stock illustration ID: 1027260535, via Shutterstock, cropped and modified