Newtown Families' Novel Suit Against Gun Maker Moves Ahead

The tragedy in Orlando is something that the people of Newtown, Connecticut know very well as 26 lives were lost in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School back in 2012. And, as in Orlando, the AR-15 rifle was used at Newtown. In a novel legal approach, the families of some of the Newtown victims have found a way to sue Remington, the manufacturer of the AR-15.  Thanks to a 2005 law passed by Republicans and signed by President Bush, gun makers and gun sellers are actually protected from liability if a gun is used in a crime. One of the only loopholes in the law was primarily targeted at gun sellers who could be held liable if they carelessly gave or sold a gun to a person who was clearly going to misuse it. For the gun makers, the fact that they would have no idea who was actually buying their guns seemed to offer broad immunity from this provision.

The novel legal approach that the families have taken is that the AR-15 is a weapon of war and, as such, the gun maker would know that the weapon would be misused even of they didn't know the individual buyers themselves.  The case seemed like a long shot, but Judge Barbara Bellis of the State Superior Court has allowed the case to go forward, allowing discovery requiring Remington to produce marketing materials and internal documents, and even setting a date for trial two years hence. The marketing materials and internal documents could show that the guns was being marketed in a way that reflected its use in war, further bolstering the families' claims. Needless to say, Remington is trying to have the case thrown out and a hearing is set for next week for a final decision on Remington's motion.

If you have any doubt about the AR-15's lethal capability, even when modified for civilian use, take a look at the segment PBS News Hour had on the gun last night with former Defense Department official Phillip Carter. The weapon is designed to create as massive a casualty as possible, even in its ammunition. Says Carter, "The other thing about this bullet is, because it’s so small and moves so fast, it tends to tumble or become volatile when it hits a person, and so it tends to create a very large wound and very difficult-to-treat wounds. Again, it’s a military weapon. It’s not designed for hunting, where you might want to preserve the meat so that you can eat it. It’s designed to wound or kill soldiers in combat." Yet the NRA insists that the gun can be used for hunting, as well as for self-defense and sport shooting. Their claim for hunting is ridiculous and, of course, every gun can conceivably be used for defense and sport, although the AR-15 seems particularly ill-equipped for both. As the Newtown families' lawyer perfectly summed up, "[T]here is one civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: mass shootings.”  Let's hope the judge allows the case to move forward with the result that gun makers are prohibited from marketing and selling military weapons to civilians. It would be at least a small step toward a little sanity in our gun laws.