Why Sandy Hook families' suit against a gunmaker was dismissed

A judge on Connecticut’s State Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit brought against the manufacturer of an assault rifle used to kill 26 people at an elementary school in 2012.

Ned Gerard/Reuters/File
Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis during a June 20 hearing in a wrongful death lawsuit against rifle maker Remington Arms brought by families of those killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

A Connecticut judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by families of those killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against the manufacturers of the assault weapon used in the attack, citing a federal law that protects such companies when their weapons are used in violent crimes.

Judge Barbara Bellis of the State Superior Court made the call Friday, some six months after ruling that the suit could move forward despite its clash with Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that created broad protections for firearm manufacturers. Families of the slain students and staff, as well as proponents of gun reform, had hoped the suit could prove that Remington Arms, the maker of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, acted negligently by selling the weapon to civilians who lack proper training to use the rifle safely.

“This action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided” by the act, Judge Bellis wrote, according to The New York Times.

The families’ attorneys had argued for an exemption to the act involving “negligent entrustment,” claiming that Remington Arms marketed and sold the assault rifle to civilians even though the company knew it posed a safety risk outside of “highly regulated institutions” like the military or law enforcement departments.

Adam Lanza used the weapon to kill 20 children and six adults at the school in December of 2012. Nine family members of the deceased and one teacher who survived the massacre were represented in the suit, which was filed against Remington Arms, a wholesaler, and a local retailer in 2014.

In April, Bellis ruled that the law "does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians," surprising some on both sides of the case when she allowed the suit to move forward.

But on Friday, Bellis ruled that the claims against Remington were too broad, noting that Congress previously deemed the weapon lawfull for civilians to possess. 

“To extend the theory of negligent entrustment to the class of nonmilitary, nonpolice civilians – the general public – would imply that the general public lacks the ordinary prudence necessary to handle an object that Congress regards as appropriate for sale to the general public,” she wrote. “This the court is unwilling to do.”

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, said they plan to appeal the decision immediately.

"While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge's decision, this is not the end of the fight,” he said. “We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening.”

Some plaintiffs, including Bill Sherlach, whose wife, Mary, was killed while working at the school, hoped the suit could shine a light on the marketing practices gun companies use to sell assault rifles.

“Trust me when I tell you that nobody wants to go through what we’ve all been through,” he told the Times.

Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Sandy Hook families' suit against a gunmaker was dismissed
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today