Judge drops lawsuit by Sandy Hook families against Remington

A federal judge has dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington Arms by families of schoolchildren slain in the Sandy Hook massacre, citing a federal law that protects gun manufacturers from liability for criminal acts committed with their product.

Fox News:

State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the Dec. 14, 2012, school attack, in which a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle made by Remington.

The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine. Their lawyer vowed an immediate appeal of Friday's ruling.

The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.

Advocates for gun control and against gun violence have criticized the law as special protection for gun makers. It became an issue in the presidential campaign this year when Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic nominee, criticized then-challenger Bernie Sanders for his support of the law in 2005. Sanders, a Vermont U.S. senator, is now backing a bill to repeal the law.

Lawyers for Remington said Congress passed the act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.

But the families' attorneys argued the lawsuit was allowed under an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others, and the judge disagreed.

"While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge's decision, this is not the end of the fight," said Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families. "We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening."

Jonathan Whitcomb, an attorney for Remington Arms, declined to comment.

The law is based on sound reasoning.  Remington does not sell products that are designed to kill people, except in self-defense.  The idea that Remington should know that some of its products are used for illegal purposes is absurd.  Which products specifically will be used in murders?  No one has the answer to that question, which means Remington, making a lawful product, cannot possibly differentiate between people who will use its product for legitimate purposes and those who won't.

Gun control advocates want to politicize the law to advance their agenda.  It is a form of lawfare that is becoming more common as elected representatives refuse to enact restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.  To circumvent the democratic process, gun control advocates want the courts to destroy the gun industry, thus achieving their goal of taking guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens.

A federal judge has dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington Arms by families of schoolchildren slain in the Sandy Hook massacre, citing a federal law that protects gun manufacturers from liability for criminal acts committed with their product.

Fox News:

State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the Dec. 14, 2012, school attack, in which a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle made by Remington.

The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine. Their lawyer vowed an immediate appeal of Friday's ruling.

The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.

Advocates for gun control and against gun violence have criticized the law as special protection for gun makers. It became an issue in the presidential campaign this year when Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic nominee, criticized then-challenger Bernie Sanders for his support of the law in 2005. Sanders, a Vermont U.S. senator, is now backing a bill to repeal the law.

Lawyers for Remington said Congress passed the act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.

But the families' attorneys argued the lawsuit was allowed under an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others, and the judge disagreed.

"While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge's decision, this is not the end of the fight," said Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families. "We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening."

Jonathan Whitcomb, an attorney for Remington Arms, declined to comment.

The law is based on sound reasoning.  Remington does not sell products that are designed to kill people, except in self-defense.  The idea that Remington should know that some of its products are used for illegal purposes is absurd.  Which products specifically will be used in murders?  No one has the answer to that question, which means Remington, making a lawful product, cannot possibly differentiate between people who will use its product for legitimate purposes and those who won't.

Gun control advocates want to politicize the law to advance their agenda.  It is a form of lawfare that is becoming more common as elected representatives refuse to enact restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.  To circumvent the democratic process, gun control advocates want the courts to destroy the gun industry, thus achieving their goal of taking guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens.