The United States Supreme Court declines to protect the weapons manufacturer from Sandy Hook's lawsuit

(Add the plaintiff's lawyer comment, paragraph 9) By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 (Reuters) - The United States Supreme Court struck the firearms industry on Tuesday, rejecting Remington Arms Co's attempt to escape a lawsuit from families of victims with the aim of holding accountability. to the weapons manufacturer for its assault style marketing. rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre that killed 20 children and six adults. The judges rejected Remington's appeal for a ruling from the Connecticut Superior Court to allow the lawsuit to continue despite a federal law that broadly protects firearms manufacturers from liability when their weapons are used in crimes. Demand will advance at a time of high passions in the United States on the issue of gun control. Family members of nine people killed and a survivor of the Sandy Hook massacre filed the lawsuit in 2014. Remington was supported in the case by several arms rights groups and lobbying organizations, including the powerful National Rifle Association, which is closely aligned with the republicans. including President Donald Trump. The NRA qualified the demand for business murder. The uproar of December 14, 2012 was carried out by a 20-year-old armed man named Adam Lanza, who made his way to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and shot at first-grade students and adult staff before shooting himself. fatally as the police approached. The United States has experienced a succession of mass shootings in recent decades, including several that have staggered the public, such as the 2017 attack at a Las Vegas concert that killed 58 and one at a nightclub in Orlando in 2016 that killed 49. Type of assault Rifles have been a recurring feature in many of the massacres. The United States Congress has not enacted new gun control laws in the wake of mass shootings largely due to Republican opposition. The plaintiffs have argued that Remington is partly to blame for the tragedy of Sandy Hook. They said that the Bushmaster AR-15 weapon used by Lanza, a semi-automatic civilian version of the M-16 of the US army, had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon to wage war and kill human beings. The plaintiffs said the Connecticut consumer protection law prohibits advertising that promotes violent and criminal behavior and, despite the fact that these rifles have become the weapon of choice for mass shooters, Remington's ads continued to exploit the fantasy of a lonely gunman who conquers everything. They pointed out that one of them declared: Opposition forces, bow down. Josh Koskoff, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said families are grateful that the court rejected Remington's appeal. We are ready to resume the discovery and proceed to the trial in order to shed light on Remington's earnings-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and attract high-risk users at the expense of American security, he said. Koskoff in a statement. A Remington representative could not be reached for comment. The company argued that it should be isolated from the lawsuit by a federal law of 2005 known as the Law on Protection of Legal Trade in Weapons, which aimed to block a wave of lawsuits that damage the firearms industry. The case depends on an exception to this shield for claims in which a weapons manufacturer knowingly violates the law of selling or marketing weapons. Remington has argued that the Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted the exception too broadly when he decided to let the case continue. Although the case does not directly imply the right of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UU. To maintain and carry weapons, the NRA told the judges in a presentation that the lawsuit could take arms manufacturers out of business, making the right thing meaningless. A state trial court initially dismissed the claims, but the Connecticut Supreme Court revived the lawsuit in March, which prompted Remington's appeal. The judges have already addressed an important case of arms rights in their current term. They must hear the arguments on December 2 in a lawsuit filed by gun owners and the state NRA affiliate that challenges New York City's restrictions on gun owners who carry firearms out of the home . (Andrew Chung Report; Will Dunham Edition) This story has not been edited by The Times of India and is automatically generated from a syndicated feed to which we subscribe. (This story has not been edited by and is automatically generated from a syndicated feed to which we subscribe.)