Court Clears Path for Sandy Hook Families to Sue Remington

​“We further conclude that PLCAA does not bar the plaintiffs from proceeding on the single, limited theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by marketing the XM15- E2S to civilians for criminal purposes, and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote. “Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.”

“Following a scrupulous review of the text and legislative history of [the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] we also conclude that Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to extinguish the traditional authority of our legislature and our courts to protect the people of Connecticut from the pernicious practices alleged in the present case. The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers.” Justice Palmer added.
​
“Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations,” Palmer concluded.

Source

There is so much to unpack here. Basically, what the court says is that these families can sue Remington and it isn't a violation of PLCAA because Remington marketed the guns to civilians for criminal use, a violation of CUTPA. Personally, I want to hear the argument for this when it comes up in court, because I missed the advertising materials being sent out by Remington about how to kill kids with their rifles. 

Obviously, being allowed to sue doesn't guarantee a win. That has to be said. But we need to look at the really big picture here. 

A lot of folks are using the comparison that if this is allowed you should be allowed to sue car manufacturers if you get hit by a drunk driver, and people come out telling us they're two completely different items and shouldn't be compared. Take this exchange from Instagram:

Here's the problem with this entire argument and what everyone misses. It isn't about comparing guns to cars. I could write an entire article about how the argument about guns vs. cars is mute because of people and cars, but we're not going to do that today. 

Today we're going to talk about how a win against Remington would clear the path for you to sue car manufacturers over drunk drivers. No matter how you view the cars vs. guns debate. 

Our court system is run off of case law, which is basically a lawyer finds a bunch of cases similar to the one he is arguing to figure out if the case is winnable and to argue it in court. I just did this in a class where I argued an appeal for a man convicted of running a chop shop by arguing illegal search and seizure based off of case law of search and seizure cases for illegal marijuana farms. What the people in the cases were convicted of was completely different from what the person I was arguing for was convicted of. But the case law was relevant. 

If these families win against Remington, a crafty lawyer could use that case to argue other lawsuits, and they don't have to be about guns. Meaning...

Let's say your kid is driving home from college one night and is hit and killed by a drunk driver. You, as a grieving parent, decide you want justice, and the charges against the person who killed your kid just aren't enough. You want those deep pockets. So you hire a lawyer who stumbles upon this case in his research. The families accused Remington of marketing their product to the civilian population for criminal purpose, removing protections against that type of lawsuit. 

The guy who killed your kid was driving a privately owned pickup truck. The lawyer could sue the manufacturer for marketing that truck - which was designed as a work vehicle, not a personal mode of transportation - to the civilian population to drive themselves home from bars while drunk. 

The lawyer could sue the manufacturer of the alcohol he was drinking for marketing their product to be consumed for the purpose of getting intoxicated at an establishment other than your home, thus marketing it for criminal purposes when they "encouraged" the driver to drive drunk. 

And the lawyer could sue the bar itself for marketing themselves as an establishment outside the home where you could get drunk, thus encouraging the driver to drive drunk, a violation of the law.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous you think that all is. It doesn't matter if you don't think the two cases have anything to do with each other. It doesn't matter if you think the lawyer couldn't win with this as case law.

A good lawyer could work with it. And they will try. If one gets a win off of it, more case law has been established, thus almost guaranteeing a win for future cases like this. And more lawsuits will follow. Bars. Car manufacturers. Alcoholic beverage makers. And it will go beyond that. Drug companies. Cities. Counties. Anything would become fair game. 

And we have an influx of what would be frivolous lawsuits... but no longer are because of established case law. That's exactly how our court system works. 

So this case has a much larger possible impact than just second amendment issues. This could shake up the court system pretty hard. It could impact our economy as well. I highly suggest following this one as closely as possible, because the impact could be massive.