Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Remington Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Remington Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Remington Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook

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!

Yes. And some major judicial overreach as well.

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

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

Written by

  • His_Highness says:

    Someone kills you with their car, your family may be able to sue them, but unlikely they can sue Ford.

    Thousands of products out there that can cause deadly harm, but only one of them is being sued.


  • sk says:

    No shocking news there. CT is a leftists utopia where all those workers and retirees who are the financiers for it are either leaving or looking to leave.

  • Bill589 says:

    I hope they waste a lot of time and money and lose the law suit.

  • F.D.R. in Hell says:

    Bring on the litigation… Let’s see what Discovery reveals about the details of this massacre.

  • windbag says:

    Did they all graduate from the AOC School of Law?

  • GWB says:

    a mentally deranged person who stole the gun he used killed 27 people in Sandy Hook
    FIFY. Always remind folks right up front that not a single gun-control proposal (short of outright confiscation) would have stopped him.

    a potential tool for “offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal
    Aside from the idiocy of “harmful marketing” (which isn’t even a thing, given the First Amendment), this sentence LEAPS out at me to be hammered down. “Offensive military style combat” is NOT illegal for “civilians”. Every single cop (who isn’t an MP or SP) in America, btw, is a “civilian”. On top of which, unless you are ineligible somehow, every single civilian is part of the militia – and therefore, not really a “civilian” at all.

    Yes, we make distinctions between “acting as part of a militia” and “everyday civilian stuff”. But the militia point is important – because it should remind us that cops are not special people with special powers. They are ordinary citizens paid to do full time what every citizen has the right (and duty!) to do anyway. If you’re going to ban a gun from “civilian” use (IOW, only used in war) you better take it from the cops, too, and every single federal agent in America.

    Marketing their rifles as appropriate for the militia is perfectly fine for a firearms manufacturer, and we should defend it.

    one helluva judicial stretch
    Not for some judge in Hawaii. After all, what do statutes and the Constitution matter when your virtue-signaling is at stake?

    This whole thing violates almost every tenet of common law that exists – criminal and civil. The only one responsible for those murders is the nutcase who pulled the trigger (and the mother for giving him the potential). But you gotta lash out at something when your heart is broke, and the ambulance chasers prey on that.

    If I had my druthers, every one of the lawyers in the suit would be disbarred. Right after Remington counter-sued them for frivolous filing and libel, taking everything they own, and everything their children and grand-children will ever own, and the state put them in jail for conspiracy to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights..

  • CaptDMO says:

    ““offensive military style combat” by civilians, which is illegal’
    How odd. In “Live Free or Die” land, it’s ensconced in the State Constitution!

  • ChairFace says:

    There is no place in this world to defend. There is no place that will defend you. Build your bunkers boys and girls, the end is neigh. No voting or protesting is going to stop it and if you fight it, it will be justified.

  • GWB says:

    And Occasional-Cortex has stepped in it (again) by blaming the NRA for the shooting in Christchurch. in New Zealand.
    Oh, and she basically flung poo at ‘religion’, too.

  • Mort says:

    And sue car manufacturers when the cars kill somebody…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner