Second Amendment Groups Stunned After Court Allows Sandy Hook Families to Sue Gun Makers

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.”

Read full article here…