Court Rules That Remington can be sued over Newtown Shooting

| March 15, 2019 | 57 Comments

Detective Barbara J. Mattson, Connecticut State Police. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Remington can be sued over the way it marketed similar weapons to the one used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting.

This case is like similar cases across the country, which had been ruled against. The justification, for ruling against similar cases in other parts of the country, involved federal law. A thrust, for the plaintiffs in this case, was an argument regarding Remington’s marketing methods, to include who they targeted for marketing.

Not much emphasis on the circumstances that led to the shooter’s decision, and ability, to commit the act.

From The Associated Press:

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, has said the Bushmaster rifle and other AR-15-style rifles were designed as military killing machines and should never have been sold to the public. He accuses Remington of targeting younger, at-risk males through “militaristic marketing and astute product placement in violent first-person shooter games.”

“The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety,” Koskoff said Thursday. “Today’s decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal.”

The article seems to want to focus on the availability of legal weapons to those who should not have done, rather than on the decision of the shooter to use a firearm to do something he knew he wasn’t supposed to be doing.

More can be read here.

Category: Second Amendment

Comments (57)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. This is just ‘lawfare’ from activist judges.

    Remember “the process is the punishment”? Remington is going to have to pay lots of legal bills.

    Good point as to what this is about :
    https://twitter.com/jonst0kes/status/1106237584261423104

    Good discussion about the legality of this :
    https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/connecticut-supreme-court-permits-sandy-hook-victims-to-sue-remington/

    • DOUG out says:

      Thanks for the links.
      Yeah, it has been a long fight: A guerrilla action fought by very expensive and motivated lawyers. And we might not be halfway home yet on this one.

  2. AW1Ed says:

    Legislation from the bench, against an inanimate object. I’m sure Remington will appeal.

  3. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    I suspect SCOTUS will rule a bit differently than SCOTCT…

    So this will just be a waste of tax payer time and money like everything else the state of CT does lately.

  4. FatCircles0311 says:

    The left is really destroying the validity of our sinsitutions when they do this sort of crap. Throw these fuckers in jail for violating the law. That would be too good for these scum.

  5. When did the Military get issued Bushmaster rifles? Sounds like the Gun nomenclature “Esplainers” are at it again. When are the lawsuits against all of the automobile companies going to start?

    • 26Limabeans says:

      The automatic transmission has destroyed countless lives by allowing morons to drive cars. The auto industry knew this but went ahead and lobbied for it anyway.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        I drive all the time for work, and also for the sheer joy of driving…had the privilege of attending a racing school driving class a long time ago. Out here in western massachusetts we have some really nice windy roads that just ask you to shift your way through a turn and enjoy the experience…not speeding mind you, just enjoying the equipment and using the transmission as it was meant to be used, in conjunction with the engine and suspension to drive through turns and such….

        What I see daily is astonishing with the lack of attention and lack of realization that people are in something that can easily kill them or others…

        Couple of days ago I am behind a car that is drifting constantly into the rumble strips on both sides of the road…I thought it was a drunk or a kid texting…

        I finally get alongside the car at a light and it’s a woman eating a breakfast sandwich, doing her eye makeup and her phone has the local TV news station on her dash…I can only suspect she was driving with her knees while not watching the road….

        • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

          During my time as a Trucker, I cannot tell you how many times I looked down from the cab of my truck and saw not only Women putting on makeup, but people reading books or newspapers while in rush hour traffic as well as working on a laptop computer while trying to drive.

        • 26Limabeans says:

          Apparently you missed the dog in her lap.

  6. David says:

    So the crux of their argument is that advertising such as “get your man card back” MADE someone kill his mother, steal her gun, and go kill children. Sounds much like a four year old trying to escape punishment for wrongdoing with “but Johnny made me do it!” Doesn’t work with parents, can’t work in court. Unless the judges are ridiculously driven by loony left wing ideology and have zero regard for the law. But this is CT…

  7. The Other Whitey says:

    Well, this is complete bullshit. Are they going to hold Anheuser-Busch liable for DUIs? Will Harbor Freight get sued in connection with the 9/11 attacks?

    Never mind that the shooter was a crazy asshole who should have been locked in a padded room long before he went on his rampage, or the deadly fallacy of the “gun-free zone” concept. This is the kind of illogical stupidity we now expect from Alex Ojos-Locos. That has infected elsewhere is disappointing.

    • NHSparky says:

      And add to this the fact his mother TRIED to get him committed, but the state of CT ignored her.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        And then he murdered her, before murdering a bunch of children. But we can’t talk about that, because then the state of Connecticut and the leftists who run it would have to take responsibility for their negligence.

        Ain’t it amazing how some people are so quick to disarm the innocent over false claims and generalizations, but consistently fail to do anything about crazy assholes who pose a clear risk to others?

    • UpNorth says:

      Not to mention, the owner of said rifle wasn’t a loony young man, but his mom. What part of Remington’s advertising targeted midde-aged women?

  8. NHSparky says:

    Above comments pretty much say what I was going to, but with the addition that way weren’t the manufacturers of the other guns he had on them named as well?

    I mean, were those guns any less deadly?

  9. Ex-PH2 says:

    1 – Take responsibility for bad behavior away from the perpetrator.
    2 – Blame the make of something that was misused instead of the misuser.
    3 – Make sure there’s lots of money involved.

    Yeah, that all makes sense. I see it now.

  10. Mason says:

    Where was the Remington ad showing how great their guns are at slaughtering children? Must have missed that one.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      I have gone through my entire collection of American Rifleman magazine and did not find it. Perhaps it was in another periodical.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        It was a Hollywood product placement, just like Smith & Wesson in “Johnny Dangerously.”

        “It’s an .88 magnum. It shoots through schools!”

        Strangely enough, I have not found that particular school-shooting model available for purchase anywhere…

  11. 26Limabeans says:

    “Detective Barbara J. Mattson”

    Paging Mr. SARC

  12. 5th/77th FA says:

    Agree with all of the above. Thanks to Ex-PH2 for ‘splainin it on a level that I could understand.

    Here’s a novel thought for some hungry lawer. Why not sue the school system/city/county/state for not providing a “safe, gun free zone”. That “gun” should have paid attention to the sign and not entered the area and self discharged to harm those people.

    No amount of money will bring back the people murdered by this scum. The rifle, nor the manufacturer committed this crime. This whole case boils down to gun grabbing politicians and money hungry lawers.

    • NHSparky says:

      Because that would be tantamount to admitting all those “gud feelz” are completely fucking useless in the face of cold hard reality.

      And that is a doubleplus-ungood thoughtcrime, comrade.

  13. OWB says:

    There is a difference between this and suing GM because the nut up the road killed some folks when he decided to drive his Chevy around while he was drunk. Owning a Chevy isn’t specifically protected by the US Constitution for those of us who don’t operate either gunzz or Chevys while stupid and/or crazy.

    Those folks who don’t want to own gunzz don’t have to own them. Sounds fair to ne.

    Meanwhile the same folks who are filing ridiculous lawsuits such as this are the same folks who make it nearly impossible to get crazy folks off the streets to protect the rest of us from their willingness to do crazy things.

  14. GDContractor says:

    “designed as military killing machines…”. Oh yes, as opposed to those non-military killing machines because they’re okay.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Is there actually such a thing as a “killing machine?” A killing machine would seem to me to be an automated contrivance that kills people independent of human input. I can’t think of any outside the realm of sci-fi.

      UAVs are remotely piloted by a human crew. Torpedoes are fired by a human crew at a target selected by a human crew, and only switch to software when they lose their connection to human guidance, so they kind of come close, but still need far too much human involvement to really qualify. The same is true of guided missiles.

      They’re describing it as something that doesn’t actually exist. Legal genius!

      Blackgunsmatter

    • SFC D says:

      Fuckers better not try to ban my Jeeps or my 1911. After all, they’re “military machines”.

  15. Ex-PH2 says:

    When is Robocop going to show up? I’m just waiting for that to happen.

  16. Azy says:

    My lawyer says he will be filing a lawsuit against Oneida Flatware soon. Any of you fatF888kers who would like to join me? My lawyer is 100% sure he can prove their spoons made me fat.

  17. Usafvet509 says:

    Guess I’ll just have to go and buy another Bushmaster to show support. Maybe an Ar10 this time…

  18. Roh-Dog says:

    Back in ‘94 and the enactment of the Federal AWB and the decade sunset clause the CT General Assembly passed their own AWB that mirrored the Federal one, with the appropriate carving for state compliance (Thank you sooo much Brady Campaign /huuuge sarc)
    That rifle the Trooper is holding is a *safe* postban-compliant rifle, note, lack of; flash hider, fixed stock, bayonet lug, foregrip.
    This is indicative of bad law, that rifle *should* have not been able to ‘assault’ due to it being ‘neutered’.
    I really dislike my ‘elected’ ‘Representatives’.

  19. aGrimm says:

    I like Matson’s haircut – porcupine chic.

  20. Stacy0311 says:

    Didn’t the Brady Campaign try this BS with the nutjob in the Aurora CO shooting? Encouraged the families to file a lawsuit.

    And then the parents who filed as plaintiffs ended up owing the retailers for their (retailer’s) legal fees.

    I’m not a lawyer but I did watch JAG (Catherine Bell was HOT), so it seems like they’ll probably prevail it state court (it IS CT) and then get counter-sued in federal court, lose and be on the hook for Remington’s legal fees.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      One family was on the hook for $100k to Lucky Gunner.
      If you’re gonna play the game…
      My heart goes out to these families but their inability to put the blame where it belongs is unnerving, a systemic cultural failure in the definition of ‘culpability’, if you will.

      • Stacy0311 says:

        I believe they tried to go after the theater saying “the theater should’ve known that they would be targeted”
        Well d’uh, that’s why they put up the gun free zone that was designed to prevent just such a thing from happening.

  21. A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

    Well gee whiz, what about all of the existing Laws that were broken during that shooting, that school was a Gun-Free Zone, shouldn’t that alone have prevented it? Wait, that’s common sense and we all know how allergic liberals are to that!

  22. Toxic Deplorable B Woodman says:

    Doesn’t the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (passed/signed 2005) prevent this sort of crap? Does it also extend to advertising?

    This will not end well for the plaintiffs. I can see Remington pulling ALL support and breaking ALL contracts (hostile) from CT. Just like Barrett did with Kalifornication.

  23. Blaster says:

    Stupid bitch!

    That is all, nothing else follows.

  24. ARMYSGM says:

    This is sad. Maybe the victim of a drunk driver can sue Ford, Chevy and Chrysler.

Leave a Reply

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