BRIDGEPORT – In a shot heard around the nation’s gun makers and dealers, a Superior Court judge Thursday refused to toss out the lawsuit by the families of the Sandy Hook victims against the manufacturer of the gun used by Adam Lanza to kill the 26 school children and teachers in December 2012.
Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the federal law protecting gun makers from lawsuits does not override the “legal sufficiency” of the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the gun used by Lanza should never have been made available for sale to civilians.
The judge ruled the lawsuit will go on and all sides are to report to her courtroom on April 19 for a status conference.
In January 2015, the families of 10 victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy filed suit against the Remington Arms Company, the maker of the Bushmaster AR-15, used by Lanza, Camfour Holding LLC, the gun’s distributor and Riverview Sales, the store where Lanza’s mother bought the gun. They claimed the gun maker and sellers knew that civilians are unfit to operate the assault rifle and yet continue selling it to civilians disregarding the threat the gun poses.
The lawsuit also alleges that Remington and the other defendants “Unethically, oppressively, immorally and unscrupulously marketed and promoted the assaultive qualities and military uses of AR-15s to civilian purchasers.”
On Dec. 11, 2015, Remington, Camfour and the gun store asked Judge Bellis to throw out the lawsuit, claiming they are immune from the families’ claims under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A hearing on the defendants’ motion was held on Feb. 22.
PLCAA bars lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of a product that is used in a criminal action.
However, in analyzing the federal law, Bellis points out that a federal court previously ruled that PLCAA states a lawsuit against a manufacturer may not be brought and the statement, “May not,” is not a clear statement from congress limiting the power of courts in the cases.
“The court concludes that any immunity that PLCAA may provide does not implicate this court’s subject matter jurisdiction,” Bellis ruled in her 18-page decision. “Accordingly, the defendants’ motions to dismiss, in which they claim that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, cannot be granted on the basis of PLCAA.”
It’s important to understand that this is a ruling on subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., whether the court has the power to decide the case at all. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Still, the PLCAA was, and still is, a huge obstacle in this lawsuit. Nice to have it beat out once.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab