‘All we want is our day in court’
Sandy Hook father speaks out after state’s high court reinstates gun case
NEWTOWN — The lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook families against a gun giant is no longer implausible after gaining ground in the state’s highest court.
The split decision reached after 16 months of deliberation in Connecticut Supreme Court clears the
way for what experts said was highly improbable: bringing a gunmaker to trial over the criminal misuse of a firearm.
While it remains the burden of the 10 families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook shooting to convince a jury that Remington is liable for the worst crime in Connecticut history — and not the disturbed gunman who took his mother’s AR-15-style rifle and killed 26 first-graders and educators — the high court’s decision to
reinstate the case in trial court bolsters the families’ argument.
They claim gunmakers can be liable if they are recklessly negligent in marketing military-grade weapons to civilians.
“There is a reason why this particular consumer product is the one that is used by people who want to inflict the most damage, and we’ve seen examples of that time and time again,” said David Wheeler, whose son was killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings, at a Thursday news conference in Bridgeport with other families who are suing Remington.
Members of Connecticut’s Democratic Congressional delegation agreed.
“For far too long, gunmakers have been allowed to produce and market products that kill thousands each year with no liability for their actions,” said Sens. Richard Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, and U.S. Rep. Jahana Hayes, in a prepared joint statement. “Today's ruling allows the victims of these horrific acts of violence to have their day in court, and hold gun manufacturers accountable.”
The state Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling comes two years after a Superior Court judge threw out the families’ suit on grounds that Remington was shielded from liability in federal law.
Thursday’s ruling means the families’ argument that Remington negligently entrusted the rifle to the shooter Adam Lanza could be decided by a jury.
“It falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet,” reads part of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion.
Remington’s response
Lawyers for Remington could not be reached for comment Thursday. A spokeswoman at the company’s North Carolina headquarters did not return messages seeking comment.
The Newtown-based trade association for the firearms industry called the majority ruling “overly broad” in interpreting an exception in the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from most liability when firearms are misused.
Lawrence Keane, the senior vice president for government and public affairs and the general counsel for the 12,000-member National Shooting Sports Foundation, called the ruling disappointing.
“The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the ex- ception,” Keane said in a prepared statement.
The families’ lead attorney disagreed.
“The families are grateful that our state’s Supreme Court has rejected the gun industry’s bid for complete immunity, not only from the consequences of their reckless conduct but also from the truthseeking discovery process,” said Josh Koskoff, in a prepared statement. “The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profitdriven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety.”
Remington has enough problems.
Early last year, the company had to agree to a restricting deal in bankruptcy court to stay in business. Remington’s financial troubles started when it took on crushing debt after the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings to cover investors who left because they didn’t want to be associated with the shooting.
Meanwhile, the company’s legal bills are mounting.
From the beginning, Remington’s lawyers argued the company manufactured a legal gun and distributed it legally to a store that sold it legally to Adam Lanza’s mother.
The families’ case
But the company’s marketing tactics came under the harshest scrutiny in court.
“The (families’) second theory of liability was that (Remington) marketed the rifle, through advertising and product catalogs, in an unethical, oppressive, immoral and unscrupulous manner by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of the rifle as a combat weapon that is in- tended to be used for the purposes of waging war and killing human beings,” wrote the justices in the majority opinion.
The justices went on to overrule the lower court judge and side with the families, saying they had the right to argue their case under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The court ruling was supported by state leaders.
“Our consumer laws were designed to protect consumers from harmful commercial activities of the type alleged in the complaint,” said state Attorney General William Tong in a prepared statement. “The military-type gun designed to inflict maximum lethality used by Adam Lanza to kill innocent children and adults on that tragic day should not have been marketed to civilians.”
State Senate President Martin Looney agreed.
“I am pleased that the Connecticut Supreme Court has recognized the appropriate role for the state’s use of its police powers to prevent the wrongful marketing of a highly dangerous product that may jeopardize the public’s health and safety,” said Looney, a Democrat from New Haven.
The ruling means both sides can begin the pre-trial phase known as discovery, where each side is entitled to request and review evidence to build a case.
The return of the family’s lawsuit to the national headlines comes at a time when Democrats are gearing up for the 2020 presidential primary.
In 2016, the lawsuit became an issue between Hillary Clinton, who opposed the federal bill shielding the gun industry from most liability, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who supported the bill.