Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Judge Tosses Sandy Hook Lawsuit in Wise Ruling

Sunday, October 16, 2016 10:08
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

For more great articles like this visit


A decision by a Connecticut Superior Court judge will likely spark new debate over laws that protect gun manufacturers from certain kinds of liability. Judge Barbara Bellis dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre on Friday, saying the defendants – Remington Arms, among others – were protected from this specific litigation by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

“The present case seeks damages for harms, including the deaths of the plaintiffs’ decedents that were caused solely by the criminal misuse of a weapon by Adam Lanza,” Bellis wrote. “This action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by PLCAA.”

The families went into the lawsuit fully aware of Remington’s immunity, but they said the Sandy Hook case represented an exception to the PLCAA. According to the 2005 law, gun manufacturers can still be held liable for crimes committed with their weapons if there is evidence that they know their guns are likely to be used in such a way that could cause harm to their users or others.

In her decision, Bellis disagreed that Remington Arms could have reasonably known that their Bushmaster XM15-E2S would have been used by Lanza to kill more than 20 children in Newtown, Conn. on that fateful day in 2012.

Lawyers for the families filed an immediate appeal.

“While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision, this is not the end of the fight,” said one of those lawyers – Joshua Koskoff. “We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening.”

In a tweet sent shortly after the ruling, Hillary Clinton said that justice had been denied the families. “It’s incomprehensible that our laws would protect gun makers over Sandy Hook families,” she said. “We need to fix this.”

Hillary has made it very clear that she means to dismantle legal immunity for gun manufacturers – one of the few issues in the primaries where she could claim ground to the left of challenger Bernie Sanders. In her view, the PLCAA provides gun manufacturers with a special kind of protection unavailable to any other industry in the country.

This, of course, is a blatant lie.

In a sane world, the PLCAA wouldn’t even be necessary because common sense would tell us that a rifle manufacturer could not possibly be responsible for crimes committed with one of their rifles. Unless Remington sells a defective product or knowingly dodges the law to put one of their guns in the hands of someone who should not have one…there’s no liability. How could there be? You might as well sue Keurig if someone bashes you in the head with one of their coffeemakers.

That Hillary Clinton is vowing to overturn the PLCAA is proof that she’s unfit to be president of the United States.

For more great articles like this visit


We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global

Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.