su_note note_color=”#efe1a7″ text_color=”#00000″ radius=”5”]The Connecticut Supreme Court will allow victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre to sue gun manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms under state unfair trade practices law, despite a federal statute that protects the gun industry from most lawsuits. Plaintiffs believe that Bushmaster’s advertising scheme violated Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law, because it encouraged the use of its weapons for unlawful purposes. The goal of the lawsuit is to shut down gun manufacturers by making them liable for individuals’ actions. While the plaintiffs will have extreme difficultly in proving their case, pre-trial discovery that will include Bushmaster’s internal communications could be harmful to the company.[/su_note]
- Second Amendment advocacy groups are denouncing a state court decision allowing families of several Sandy Hook victims to sue a gun manufacturer.
- The manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, produced and marketed the XM15, which shooter Adam Lanza used to kill more than 20 people.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court said the plaintiffs can try and convince a jury that Bushmaster’s marketing campaign for the weapon broke state law.
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling allowing victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre to sue gun manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms left Second Amendment groups bewildered.
The 4-3 decision found that the plaintiffs — the families of nine victims — can sue Bushmaster under state unfair trade practices law, despite a federal statute that protects the gun industry from most lawsuits.
“This is like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles,” said the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb.
“This ruling strains logic, if not common sense,” Gottlieb added. “The court dismissed the bulk of the lawsuit’s allegations, but appears to have grasped at this single straw by deciding that the advertising is somehow at fault for what Adam Lanza did that day in December more than six years ago.”