Popular Articles
Today Week Month Year

Supreme Court OKs lawsuit by Sandy Hook parents against gunmaker Remington in spite of federal law that prohibits such lawsuits
By JD Heyes // Nov 12, 2019

It’s increasingly obvious that the Democrat Left, be they lawmakers, public servants, or judges, couldn’t care less about the law or the rule of law when it comes to implementing their agenda.


That’s especially true of their gun control agenda. 

But it’s distressing when men and women entrusted with upholding the Constitution and ensuring that duly-passed federal laws are enforced assist the Democrat Left in their lawless ways.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against firearms maker Remington to proceed even though federal law states clearly that gun makers cannot be sued in virtually all instances when their products are misused by someone.

The suit has been filed by families of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, which were committed by a mentally unstable teen who stole his mother’s firearms, killed her, then went to an elementary school to murder young students.

Courts in Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook school is located, have okayed the suit despite the law.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, codified in 15 United States Code, “is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products,” GovTrack reports.

“However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible,” the site notes.

However, there’s one additional caveat: “They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.” And it’s this caveat that is being used by the families to sue Remington.

But how could any gun manufacturer know ahead of time that a specific gun is going to be used to commit a crime? There’s no way to know, of course. 

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court denied Remington’s request to review the case as it proceeds through Connecticut courts, effectively allowing it to proceed.

So much for the law

The Washington Times reported: 

The gun manufacturer had challenged the legal battle against it, saying federal law generally prohibits lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers when criminal use results from such a sale.

The estates representing the Sandy Hook victims, though, have argued Remington used unlawful marketing practices of the particular weapon used by Adam Lanza, who slaughtered the more than two dozen victims in December of 2012.

Again, the rifle Lanza used was stolen from his mother. She even had them locked up, according to reports. 

So how is this Remington’s fault? (Related: Was a professor fired for speaking out about Sandy Hook?)

It’s not, of course. Remington officials can no more predict if or when a customer might use one of their firearms to commit a murder or other crime any more than Ford, GM, or Chrysler can predict when a driver of one of their vehicles might commit a crime or murder with it. 

How about food companies that sell fatty foods? Should they be held responsible for every heart attack or stroke in America? 

The Left loves this kind of judicial activism because it helps them advance their ‘destroy America from within’ agenda. 

They use the courts as political weapons to get what they want despite what the laws actually say. 

A law on the books that prohibits firearms makers from being sued if someone uses their guns to commit a murder? No problem; they’ll just find a friendly court and secure a ruling that completely countermands the spirit and intent of the law.

It’s not clear whether this Sandy Hook lawsuit will ultimately be successful, but it had better not be. If it is, the rule of law in America will officially become whatever a federal or state court says it is — or is not.

Sources include:




Take Action:
Support NewsTarget by linking to this article from your website.
Permalink to this article:
Embed article link:
Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use is permitted with credit to NewsTarget.com (including a clickable link).
Please contact us for more information.
Free Email Alerts
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.

NewsTarget.com © 2022 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. NewsTarget.com is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. NewsTarget.com assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

This site uses cookies
News Target uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy.
Learn More
Get 100% real, uncensored news delivered straight to your inbox
You can unsubscribe at any time. Your email privacy is completely protected.