A Connecticut state court ruled that the victims of Adam Lanza's shooting at Sandy Hook in 2012 could sue Remington Arms because the mad killer who had been dead stole his mother's rifle for use. during the attack.
"It's like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and stomped because automakers had announced that their cars had better acceleration and better performance than other vehicles. Said Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president. Second Amendment Foundation.
Lanza, 20, killed his mother and passed his legal Bushmaster rifle to drive him to school. There, he murdered 20 children and six adults.
A lawsuit was filed in which Remington's advertising was intended to glorify the Bushmaster rifle and make it more appealing to younger consumers.
Judge Richard Palmer of the Connecticut Supreme Court said in the majority opinion, "The regulation of advertising that threatens the health, safety and morals of the public has long been considered an essential exercise of the police powers of the United States. 'State".
Absurd, says Gottlieb.
"Does advertising even suggest remotely that the Bushmaster is the best to murder people? It seems to me that the court was looking for a way to circumvent the provisions of the law on the protection of the lawful arms trade adopted by Congress in 2005. After all, the court rejected most of the allegations, but has now decided that advertising could be at fault. It is a part of credulity worthy of a surgical elastic.
"There is no evidence that the murderer was motivated by any publicity. This is an affront to the first amendment as to the second. Even to suggest that the murderer was motivated in one way or another by an advertising message is so far removed from the weeds that it may be necessary to have a map for the court to find its way back . "
This initiative comes as gun control activists are once again making a frenzy. In many states, the current legislation is to have a "red flag" legislation allowing relatives or law enforcement to seize a judge and simply remove the rights of the second amendment for those who, in their opinion, should not be armed.
The laws would also eliminate due process for the victims of these campaigns.
The Connecticut decision was a 4-3 division, and restored the case against Remington.
"This decision adds to the logic, if not common sense," said Gottlieb. "The court rejected most of the allegations in the trial, but it seems to have seized that straw by deciding that the advertisement was somehow faulty for what Adam Lanza had done. December day more than six years ago.
Philly.com called it a "revolutionary decision" for the case brought by the successions of nine victims of Lanza.
They claimed that the manufacturer and distributor of the rifle had negligently authorized and encouraged civilians to use a weapon intended solely for military and law enforcement personnel.
AT United States today, According to a report, the plaintiffs' attorney, Joshua Koskoff, told the court at a hearing in 2017 that Bushmaster should never have been sold to the public.
He said Thursday that the manufacturer was guilty of using the gun to "woo the high-risk users."
The 2005 Federal Act, the Law on the Protection of the Legal Trade in Arms, was used as the basis for court decisions to dismiss lawsuits against firearms manufacturers.
These cases involved a 2012 movie filming Colorado and others.
Law professor John Banzhaf warned that such a precedent could engage the responsibility of fast food companies for obesity if they are sold to young children, or to those who market off-road vehicles if their ads suggest the enthusiasm to use them.
Lanza has become what is called an "intermediate cause" and is engaged in a crime punishable by the death penalty.