Despite the very clear law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, the Supreme Court decided that the families of the victims in the Sandy Hook shooting may proceed with their lawsuit against the firearms manufacturer.
In a move that many people clearly argue is designed to cripple the firearms industry, the Supreme Court ignored the law by refusing to hear Remington’s appeal of the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling.
The Stamford Advocate reports 10 Sandy Hook families filed the suit despite the existence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; “a federal law that shields the industry from most liability when its firearms are criminally misused.”
On November 14, 2017, Breitbart News reported the AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook attack was stolen, as was the handgun the attacker used to take his own life when police reached the scene.
The gunmaker argued that the state court’s interpretation of the marketing exemption is, “intolerable given Congress’s ‘intention to create national uniformity'” with the federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. “As the dissenters below noted, lawsuits like this one are precisely the kind the PLCAA was enacted to prevent.”
A survivor and relatives of nine victims filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public and alleging it targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games.
Tuesday’s order from the Supreme Court does not mean Remington or other gun manufacturers will face any immediate liability, but it does set the stage for potential court battles over whether or not the gun industry is responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and potentially open the door to other suits in relation to other mass shootings or murders.
“The decision will have immediate and severe consequences, exposing the firearms industry to costly and burdensome litigation,” Remington argued in its petition to the Supreme Court. “Thus, as a leading scholar on firearm-manufacturer liability has explained, the decision below will ‘unleash a flood of lawsuits across the country,'” it continued, citing Timothy D. Lytton, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.
The high court’s denial of Remington’s petition also does not mean it will be the tribunal’s last word on the issue, as it often allows controversial issues to percolate in lower courts for years before weighing in. The Remington case could also make its way back to the Supreme Court on other grounds.
The case will now proceed in a lower state court.
Nevertheless, many people argue that the court should have heard the appeal and made a ruling. Now, liberal gun-grabbing advocates, they claim, will open countless lawsuits designed at taking all profits and assets from gun manufactures, and thereby help destroy them.