KF Correction: The "verdict" was actually a settlement. Article
Does the stunning $73 million verdict against gun manufacturer Remington in the 2012 school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, that claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six educators signal a sea change in litigation against gun makers?
In a word, no. Congress has provided near blanket legal immunity to gun manufacturers from lawsuits of this nature.
In 2005, Congress adopted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which shielded both sellers and manufacturers of qualified products from civil litigation brought by the victims of gun violence or their families alleging misuse of those same products.
Specifically, Congress found in crafting the PLCAA that “businesses in the U.S. that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.”
So just how did the Sandy Hook victims’ families circumvent that federal legal protection? Attorneys for the plaintiffs successfully argued that Remington marketed the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza through the video game “Call of Duty” in violation of Connecticut trades practices law.
Plaintiffs identified a narrow exemption to the PLCAA protections in the Sandy Hook case. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under Connecticut law over the marketing of the rifle. Remington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
In state and federal courts, Remington denied there was evidence to establish that its marketing had anything to do with the massacre. Remington filed for bankruptcy in 2020 under the weight of the lawsuits, and the $73 settlement will be paid by four of the company’s liability insurers.
The Sandy Hook case is seen as a victory for opponents of unfettered Second Amendment rights. But should it be seen as the harbinger of new legal victories against gun manufacturers?
Again, in a word, no.
The PLCAA is a tremendous legal shield for gun sellers and manufacturers. The National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre at the time called it “the most important gun legislation in the last 20 years.”
Distinguished Georgia State University law professor and legal scholar Thomas D. Lytton, who is a national expert on the history of lawsuits against gun manufacturers, said the Sandy Hook verdict decidedly does not open the floodgates for successful civil litigation against them from victims of crime and their families.
Lytton cited the narrow path those plaintiffs had to traverse to overcome the PLCAA protections in making that assessment in an essay written for scholarly news site TheConversation.com:
“The Sandy Hook settlement leaves unanswered the scope of the federal immunity shield, which thwarted all prior attempts to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of their weapons. What’s more, Remington’s reasons for agreeing to settle may have more to do with the company’s struggle to reemerge from bankruptcy than a newfound willingness among gun-makers to settle claims.
“While the settlement is a notable victory for the families of Sandy Hook’s victims, it’s still unclear if it’s a game-changer for gun control advocates,” Lytton said.
How the Supreme Court reacts to the Sandy Hook case will be closely watched in future cases, but it is in state capitols where the fight over gun rights is most volatile and active. In red states like Mississippi, with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country and more emerging from the state legislative hopper each year, that observation is accurate both from a legal and political standpoint.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.
37 comments:
You’re really on a blog asking anon commenters a question better suited for a lawyer?
Sigh.
It was a settlement not a verdict.
Remington agreed to pay these claims.
Nope, it was just the insurance company that settled out of court.
The Sandy Hook shooting was entirely the fault of Adam Lanza and his mother. But Adam and his mom are dead. Remington’s owners have deep pockets. Last I heard Remington was actually owned by some foreign investment firm.
Ha, tell that to the mayor in Magee
Remington got just a small slice of what it deserved.
To the point of this article, crime in this red state (not just Jackson) really went on the upswing right around the time the State Legislature drastically loosened gun laws in the early 2010’s, coincidence?
That is the headline the author sent with the column.
The gun company was guilty of what exactly ?
Remington Arms Company, LLC was an American manufacturer of firearms and ammunition, now defunct. All assets sold off.
A person decides when to murder people not the gun. If they did not have a gun they would find another object to use. If you can sue the gun manufacture then you should be able to sue anyone that the makes an object to murder someone with. Even a rock can be used to kill someone.
To the point of this article, crime in this red state (not just Jackson) really went on the upswing right around the time the State Legislature drastically loosened gun laws in the early 2010’s, coincidence?
Link? Proof? PUT UP.
Settlementl, not verdict
So I guess every family who has had a loved one killed by a drunk driver should sue the car manufacturer and alcohol company too... This is a world of passing the buck. No one condemns the person behind the action. Guns kill people, pencils cause typos, Oreos made you fat. 98% of the time the person chose to do what they did. I'll give 2% to pure accidents.
@9:19 and 10:12, It’s pretty foolish to think that easy access to guns doesn’t play a role in violent crimes. Sorry, but that’s just a bad take and shows a lack of common sense. If nuclear weapons were made legal, would you blame the individual who used it or the dumbass law that allowed every moron to own them? Guns have a primary purpose of killing. Not everyone is capable of responsibly owning them, hence the out of control gun violence we currently experience.
Perhaps the settlement was with the insurance company or bankruptcy trustee? Ruger bough Marlin out of Temington’s bankruptcy a year ago or so.
But where is the check?
8:33, your thoughts on crime upswing is about two levels below the IQ of a rock.....
Maybe an upswing, but its all in the blue sections, committed by blue voters.
Maybe the cities of Portland & Seattle and few others should sue the petroleum companies for making gasoline so readily available for the peaceful Dim-O-Krats protesters to use in committing arson during the peaceful "protest"
11:25, blue areas like Simpson County (to name just one recent example, out of many) right?
And I would like to see a link to the study you conducted of criminal defendants on their voting records. It’s almost as if you based your b.s. assumption on race or something like that. But I know how sensitive you guys are to being called racist, so I’ll be nice and not say it.
10:36 : Knew a girl who was beat to death by her boyfriend within 3 feet of a loaded 9mm that belonged to the killer. Your words I know make sense to you as you write them but I know more people killed by drunk drivers than guns. This country has as many knife attacks, beatings etc...as shootings. To be fair to your comment, WE are growing more violent by the day and a certain generation really really loves shooting at each other.
@12:20 - look up the murder statistics. They simply don’t match your anecdotal stories. Also, where do you live that so many people are being killed by drunk drivers? In my personal experience, I don’t know a single person that has been murdered or killed by a drunk driver, but that certainly doesn’t mean that it doesn’t ever happen to anyone else. When you look at a larger sample size, you start to get meaningful data.
2:56 : This will mark the first year in our history where gun deaths out pace car deaths. I am not stupid and keep up with stats. Your argument is that there are to many "easy" guns. THAT is simply a pointless DEM talking point. You could make every gun in the world illegal and the spawn will still get one. G-dang, you can literally make one at home now. The issue is society and one simple fact. Humans have reached this rounds evolutionary stopping point and it's not going to improve in our lifetime. A bloody end is coming....be it natural or by our own hand. YOU nor I can change it. Good day.
@3:29 - car accidents and dui deaths are two different things. Not sure why you fail to recognize a difference there. And my point is not that changing gun laws will make some magical difference. The cat is already out of the bag as there are hundreds of millions of guns flooding our streets. Slapping a band aid on that isn’t going to make a noticeable difference. It is a fact that anyone who wants a gun can easily get one. That’s not a “Dem talking point”, it’s common sense dummy. There is no point in arguing that basic truth. My point is that accepting the mass murder of elementary school children is just the cost of having so many guns and the two are certainly related. You have to pay a price for freedoms, and in the case of gun rights, that price is thousands of needless murders including those of school children. Having this many guns leads to this many gun deaths and that is something we have to accept, and yet morons like to pretend that if we didn’t have guns, psychos like the Sandy Hook mass murdered would still have carried out his act in some other way. I saw a picture of the Sandy Hook shooter, and my money would have been on those 6-7 year olds and their teachers if it was a fair fight of hand to hand combat instead of a coward with a killing machine in his hands.
During the next year every good man , woman and child will need to be armed to save themselves from the left.
Remington didn't get out of Connecticut and move to Georgia soon enough.
Poorly researched article. "Remington" no longer existed.
Lawyers for the insurers of the former company (not anyone from the gun industry) elected to settle.
The defendants would have certainly won the case had it gone to trial.
The PLCAA was intended precisely to have these cases thrown out, not settled, before trial.
Plaintiffs never intended to win a case, but to simply bankrupt companies defending frivolous suits.
Involved state and federal judges are apparently corrupt, which is not news.
3:29’s point: “A bloody end is coming....be it natural or by our own hand. YOU nor I can change it,” so let’s just speed up our destruction with a bunch of nonsensical laws that make it possible for any lunatic to own and carry a gun virtually anywhere (which our state Legislature has basically done already). Let’s let them have nuclear weapons while we are at it… those are “arms” too, right?
As I understand it, Remington was accused of marketing a cool-looking rifle to children. Some of the advertising was pretty outrageous, in my opinion. (see also Joe Camel).
It is also my understanding that Remington went all-in for the huge profit margins on MSRs (modern sporting rifles, e.g. AR-type platforms), and lost the bet. I think that had more to do with the bankruptcy than the Sandy Hook litigation.
I will tolerate just about any opinion. But I cannot stand by while Joe Camel is attacked.
Why don't we try an experiment. Totally ban guns in New York or California and lets see how it goes for a year. It crime and gun deaths plumet then you would have an argument.
The problem is unstable people and people with mental issues in the general population. It appears the numbers have increase. Why is that? IS It in our food. Lets make a compromise and you take a mental test to get a gun and dems agree that everyone shows some form of ID when they vote. Nows that a compromise
The problem is they two sides dont want to handle problems they get too much money from lobbying fighting the other side. $$$$$ always follow the $$$$$
4:38 and 5:22 really need to take a step back from the gun issue and find a more fixable issue to bitch about. Sandy Hook boy was/is INSANE. Maybe a better mental health/birth control/ blood testing systems would be a better hill to die on. Maybe his parents should not have combined their genes. Ever think about it that way ?
What's happening in Europe RIGHT NOW is the reason why we have a 2nd amendment folks and in the near future you will be praising and relying upon that neighbor who owns that AR and a months worth of ammo ! After that month runs out it will be YOU trying to help find some more !
@8:45 - so you think we should better find mental health? Get out of here with that Marxist communism.
@10:50 - good luck shooting down missiles with your guns.
@12:07
Why are anti-2A people also so ignorant? Every nation who fan afford it, deploys a gatling style machine gun called a CIWS. Ours is called Phalanx. It shoots down missiles quite easily. It is the primary reason for the development of hypersonic weapons.
@12:31 - since you aren’t following the conversation very well, I will explain it to you.
10:50 said the reason for the 2a is what is happening in Europe. In case you aren’t aware, Russia is a invading Ukraine using tanks, warships, and aircraft. 10:50 states that the anti 2a people will be relying on the ammo hoarders to protect them from invading Russian forces.
12:07 then responds to 10:50 saying that his guns will be ineffective against incoming Russian missiles.
You then reply that there is a weapon our military possesses to shoot down missiles. Your argument has nothing to do with 2a unless you are insinuating that we should all be able to purchase that missile defense system.
So my question to you is why are all these pro 2a people so ignorant?
Post a Comment