U.S. Supreme Court will not shield gun maker from Sandy Hook lawsuit




  • In US
  • 2019-11-12 14:41:56Z
  • By Reuters

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt a blow to the firearms industry, rejecting Remington Arms Co's bid to escape a lawsuit by families of victims aiming to hold the gun maker liable for its marketing of the assault-style rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre that killed 20 children and six adults.

The justices turned away Remington's appeal of a ruling by Connecticut's top court to let the lawsuit proceed despite a federal law that broadly shields firearms manufacturers from liability when their weapons are used in crimes. The lawsuit will move forward at a time of high passions in the United States over the issue of gun control.

The family members of nine people slain and one survivor of the Sandy Hook massacre filed the lawsuit in 2014. Remington was backed in the case by a number of gun rights groups and lobbying organizations including the powerful National Rifle Association, which is closely aligned with Republicans including President Donald Trump. The NRA called the lawsuit "company-killing."

The Dec. 14, 2012 rampage was carried out by a 20-year-old gunman named Adam Lanza, who shot his way into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and fired on the first-graders and adult staff before fatally shooting himself as police closed in.

The United States has experienced a succession of mass shootings in recent decades, including several that have staggered the public such as the 2017 attack at a Las Vegas concert that killed 58 and one at a nightclub in Orlando in 2016 that killed 49. Assault-type rifles have been a recurring feature in many of the massacres.

The U.S. Congress has not enacted new gun control laws in the wake of the mass shootings largely because of Republican opposition.

The plaintiffs have argued that Remington bears some of the blame for the Sandy Hook tragedy. They said the Bushmaster AR-15 gun that Lanza used - a semi-automatic civilian version of the U.S. military's M-16 - had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings.

The plaintiffs said that Connecticut's consumer protection law forbids advertising that promotes violent, criminal behavior and yet even though these rifles have become the "weapon of choice for mass shooters" Remington's ads "continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman." One of them, they noted, stated, "Forces of opposition, bow down."

Remington argued that it should be insulated from the lawsuit by a 2005 federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was aimed at blocking a wave of lawsuits damaging to the firearms industry.

The case hinges on an exception to this shield for claims in which a gun manufacturer knowingly violates the law to sell or market guns. Remington has argued that the Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted the exception too broadly when it decided to let the case go ahead.

Though the case does not directly implicate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the NRA told the justices in a filing that the lawsuit could put gun manufacturers out of business, making the right meaningless.

A state trial court initially threw out the claims but the Connecticut Supreme Court revived the lawsuit in March, prompting Remington's appeal.

The justices already have taken up one important gun rights case in their current term.

They are due to hear arguments on Dec. 2 in a lawsuit by gun owners and the state's NRA affiliate challenging New York City restrictions on handgun owners transporting firearms outside the home. The city had asked the justices to cancel the arguments because its measure was recently amended, meaning there was no longer any reason to hear the dispute. But the court decided to go ahead with the case.



(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

COMMENTS

More Related News

Supremes Signal a Brave New World of Popular Presidential Elections
Supremes Signal a Brave New World of Popular Presidential Elections

Whither the Electoral College?The Supreme Court had its say on the matter during the always-eventful last week of the term. To repeat a contention often made in these columns, the High Court has evolved into an essentially political institution, robed in the judiciary's apolitical veneer. Given that we are a deeply divided nation, that the late-term cases are usually the most controversial, and that the four left-leaning justices - those appointed by Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama - tend to vote as a bloc in these cliffhanger rulings, one doesn't expect many 9-0 decisions when the calendar reaches late June (let alone July).Yet there it was on Monday: Chiafalo v. Washington. At...

Year of surprise Supreme Court rulings shows influence of powerful chief justice John Roberts
Year of surprise Supreme Court rulings shows influence of powerful chief justice John Roberts

The court's unpredictability is largely the work of Chief Justice John Roberts, who has become a hugely influential figure in American life.

The Supreme Court Just Set a Time Bomb to Explode Under President Biden
The Supreme Court Just Set a Time Bomb to Explode Under President Biden

In delaying any public release of Donald Trump's financial records on Thursday, the Supreme Court also handed itself a major victory. The loser could be our democratic system of government. The court's majority in Trump v. Mazars granted the judiciary broad new leeway to decide whether congressional subpoenas against the president will be enforced. The court's majority found that rigorous judicial oversight is required to ensure that Congress does not harass or overburden presidents with politically motivated demands for information.The result may be a time bomb set to go off under a President Biden, as a judiciary packed with Trump appointees now has broad new discretion to involve...

Trump and conservatives hijacked the Supreme Court. We
Trump and conservatives hijacked the Supreme Court. We're progressives ready to fight back.

We don't agree on everything, but we agree progressives must unite to fight for control of the court. Otherwise, everything we care about is at risk.

Trump Aides Not Sweating His Supreme Court Taxes Rebuke
Trump Aides Not Sweating His Supreme Court Taxes Rebuke

Moments after the Supreme Court resoundingly rejected President Donald Trump's claims to total immunity from prosecution on Thursday, the president did what he usually does: He began venting his rage on Twitter.Behind the scenes, however, members of his team were far more serene. "It's not something we are worrying about," an adviser to Trump's re-election campaign bluntly told The Daily Beast. That's because, as that adviser and another source working on the president's re-election effort say, they are operating under the belief that the ruling will be a non-issue, at least for now. There is widespread expectation that any resulting revelations about the president's finances will occur...

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: US