UPDATE 2-U.S. Supreme Court will not shield gun maker from Sandy Hook lawsuit




  • In US
  • 2019-11-12 14:44:02Z
  • By Reuters

(Adds background from case, paragraphs 9-13)

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (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

Obergefell: Supreme Court, lawmakers have more to do to prevent anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Obergefell: Supreme Court, lawmakers have more to do to prevent anti-LGBTQ discrimination

Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect - and that means ensuring no one faces unfair treatment because of their LGBTQ+ identity.

Supreme Court grants Trump
Supreme Court grants Trump's request to temporarily block two banks from disclosing his financial records

In an emergency filing, President Trump had asked the Supreme Court to block two banks from releasing his financial records to two House committees.

High Court Temporarily Keeps Trump Financial Records Private
High Court Temporarily Keeps Trump Financial Records Private

(Bloomberg) -- A U.S. Supreme Court justice temporarily blocked subpoenas that would force Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. to turn over years of President Donald Trump's financial documents to two House committees.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put the subpoenas on hold on Friday until Dec. 13. The justices are already scheduled to discuss at a private conference that day whether to take up a separate challenge by Trump to a subpoena by a New York prosecutor for his tax returns.The request Ginsburg acted on Friday stems from a Dec. 3 federal appeals court decision that largely rejected Trump's contentions that lawmakers were exceeding their authority and intruding on his...

Trump asks Supreme Court to stop banks from disclosing his financial data
Trump asks Supreme Court to stop banks from disclosing his financial data
  • US
  • 2019-12-06 19:42:59Z

President Donald Trump, fighting to keep details of his finances secret, asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to prevent records held by Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp from being handed over to Democratic-led congressional panels. Trump's lawyers asked the high court to put a hold a Dec. 3 ruling by the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directing the two banks to comply with April subpoenas by the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee and Intelligence Committee for the financial records. If the justices grant that request, it would give Trump's lawyers time to file a formal appeal of the lower court ruling.

House passes bill to restore key parts of Voting Rights Act
House passes bill to restore key parts of Voting Rights Act

The Democratic-controlled House approved a bill Friday that would restore key sections of the Voting Rights Act that once required officials in all or parts of 15 mostly Southern states to receive federal approval before making changes to the voting process. The bill would amend the 1965 law to impose new obligations on states and local jurisdictions, essentially reversing a 2013 Supreme Court decision that tossed out a "pre-clearance" provision that determined which jurisdictions needed federal oversight of elections. Veteran Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., an icon of the civil rights movement, announced the tally in a sign of the importance Democratic leaders place on the measure.

Leave a Comment

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

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: US