More than six years after Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, parents and community members are still looking for some form of closure. Unfortunately, they are being misled to believe that a gun manufacturer is are somehow to blame for the deaths of 20 children and six adults in 2012.
The person responsible was mentally-unhinged, 20-year-old Adam Lanza who murdered his mother and took her lawfully-purchased firearms before attacking the school and committing suicide. Although Lanza had been treated for mental illness under the “Birth of Three” program in New Hampshire and Yale Child Study, these organizations failed to flag him as a danger to himself and others adequately.
Instead of lawyers and liberal politicians pressing to hold those who did not do enough to prevent the massacre, they have been working tirelessly to punish Remington Outdoor Company and advocates of the Second Amendment. These are three things you should know about the bogus Remington lawsuit.
1: Remington Lawsuit is About Politics
Connecticut’s lower court had already struck down the suit brought in behalf of the estates of the Sandy Hook victims. It based that ruling on a federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in the event their products are used illegally. Such laws do not specifically protect firearm companies. They isolate companies that make a wide range of products from kitchen knives to power drills and everything in between. The reasoning is that manufacturers have no control over how people use their products.
That being said, the Sandy Hook lawsuit was appealed to the CT Supreme Court where it ran into a bench full of liberal judicial activists. Yes, there are Obama judges and Trump judges. On the CT high court, there are seven liberals — six Democrats, one Independent — and zero Republicans. The CT Supreme Court pivoted and engaged in liberal political activism from the bench by reversing the lawsuit’s dismissal claiming Remington engaged in false advertising.
“The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” CT Justice Richard Palmer stated.
A participant in the lawsuit reportedly said on National Public Radio that slogans such as “consider your man card renewed” somehow are false claims that caused the school shooting. The court’s claims are as bogus as the motivation for the lawsuit.
2: Lawsuit is About Punishing Those Who Disagree
The CT court has also taken up the ideological position that either Americans agree with their far-left beliefs, or you are evil and must be punished. This idea comes from liberals thinking their opinions are facts, and that idea is hard at work in the Democrat court’s phony opinion.
Because Remington aggressively marketed its AR-15 semiautomatic firearms under somewhat hyped “military” jargon, the court seems to be buying into the false propaganda that semiautomatic weapons are illegal. Nothing could be further from the truth. The marketing verbiage sited in the lawsuit includes the following:
“The uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission adaptable as you are.”
“When you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers.”
‘‘The ultimate combat weapons system.’’
Of course, video games are even more aggressively marketed, and nothing in any of Remington’s advertisements promoted illegal use, let alone murder. The court sidesteps facts such as the assailant was mentally ill and killed the lawful owner — his mother — to gain access to the weapons. Instead, it mimics left-wing anti-gun rights politicians.
“It is not at all clear, however, that the Second Amendment’s protections even extend to the types of quasi-military, semiautomatic assault rifles at issue in the present case,” the CT court stated. In other words, these Democrat judges are letting a lawsuit move forward they know is illegal because they disagree with gun rights advocates. It’s about punishing gun owners and makers.
3: Lawsuit is About Money, Not Justice
Like it or not, lawsuits are about recouping damages — money. In Blue-state Connecticut, the plaintiffs would not conceive of going after the likes of Yale University for not doing enough to warn the public. The plaintiffs cannot go after the lawful gun owner because she was killed. The 20-year-old who carried out the evil deed is also deceased. The victims’ families could target the school board for not adequately protecting their children with armed guards. But that would be their own tax money.
In reality, Remington Outdoor Company sort of fell into owning Bushmaster that manufactures AR-15s. The corporation has upwards of 3,500 employees and earns approximately $1 billion annually. No civil lawsuit can heal their families’ loss. Remington just has deep financial pockets, and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are looking for a payday. If Remington loses in liberal Connecticut, the company would be on solid ground appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court and winning.
~ Firearm Daily
