Supreme Court Allows Lawsuit Against Remington To Proceed
The Supreme Court deferred the lawsuit against Remington back to the lower court in Connecticut. That means the lawsuit will proceed. The Sandy Hook families that brought the lawsuit are likely ecstatic, but they still have a long way to go to prove their case.
Bearing Arms noted this from the National Shooting Sports Association:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, as the firearms industry’s trade association, is disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today not to review the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Remington v. Soto. Annually, more than 7,000 cases are petitioned to the high court. While the court only accepts a limited number of cases, we believed this case was worthy of review. The case now returns to Connecticut state court for trial where the plaintiffs will need to prove that Remington’s lawful advertising of a legal product violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), the only claim remaining in the case, and that it somehow caused Adam Lanza to murder innocent victims.
We are confident that Remington will prevail at trial. Nothing in Remington’s advertising of these products connotes or encourages the illegal or negligent misuse of firearms, or that Mrs. Nancy Lanza, who lawfully purchased the firearm two years prior to the incident, or Adam Lanza himself, saw or were influenced in any way by any advertisement. As the Connecticut Supreme Court noted in its 4-3 decision allowing the case to proceed noted, “Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task.”
We continue to feel sympathy toward the Sandy Hook victims, as NSSF is headquartered in Newtown, but Adam Lanza alone is responsible for his heinous actions.
The plan is to bankrupt the firearms industry. No advertising means no sales.
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 good news is that the plaintiffs will have to prove that Remington knowingly violated the law by their advertising. Lanza’s mother Nancy legally bought the gun, Adam Lanza illegally stole the gun.
This lawsuit has been on again off again several times. The advertising angle is the only portion of the case left, as other parts have been dumped, so the Supreme Court pushed it back to the lower court to complete adjudication.
Anti-gunners have been celebrating what they think is a victory. But the fight is far from over, and the final battle has yet to be fought.
Featured photo: author photo