Families Victims of the 2012 Tragedy Get a New Chance to Bring Remington into Court
In a surprising turn of events, the Connecticut Supreme Court has opened the door for the families of children lost in the Sandy Hook massacre to sue Remington Outdoor Co. Inc. The 4‑to‑3 decision clears a path that had been blocked by the trellised shield of federal law shielding gun makers from almost any civil liability.
What Went Down in the Ruling
- Constitutional Backdrop: The case matters a lot because it could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. A 5‑to‑4 conservative majority there might not see the Second Amendment as a deciding factor.
- Federal Protection: For years the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has kept companies like Remington, Sturm Ruger and Vista Outdoor out of the hands of plaintiffs. This court no longer looks at that shield as an airtight barrier.
- Consumer‑Protection Angle: The Connecticut judges said that the grievances could be pursued under a state consumer‑protection statute, sidestepping the previously rejected “negligent entrustment” theory.
- Outcome for the Families: The court said, “If Congress didn’t intend to cover unethical marketing that fuels criminal activity, a jury should look at whether Remington’s practices rank up to illegal trade practices.” That’s a huge step.
Why It Matters
The ruling cracks the protective veneer that has long kept firearm manufacturers from facing lawsuits over misuse of their products. Below is why this matters:
- Victims now have a tangible route to hold the gun industry accountable.
- It could set a precedent for future state‑law challenges to federal immunities.
- Gun‑control advocates cheer the win, dropping the “no justice for gun crimes” narrative.
Reactions from the Battlefront
Legal experts have shaken their heads about how this will play out. Michael Moreland, a professor at Villanova Law School, thinks the victory will be fought tooth and nail, because the PLCAA’s shield remains strong. Yet, the Court’s decision could tip the balance in favor of plaintiffs in future state‑law cases.
On the other side of the fence, the National Shooting Sports Foundation gifts a nod to the dissenting judges, saying the ruling “doesn’t align with the standard interpretation of the federal exception.” It’s a tug‑of‑war that’s far from over.
What the Families Are Actually Saying
Lawyer Josh Koskoff grinned while he spoke about the win. “The families have been on a relentless mission to expose Remington’s reckless drive for profits,” he told reporters. “Today’s ruling is a step closer to shining a spotlight on those shady strategies that left innocent children on the front lines.”
Looking Ahead
Will the Supreme Court overturn this decision? In a tight 5‑to‑4 vote, they could. If so, the same tough battle the families faced will be the next chapter. Still, the current ruling shows that even a heavily shielded industry can be brought to the courtroom if enough legal teams dig up the right angles.
