abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

17 Oct 2016

Author:
Lois Beckett, Guardian (USA)

USA: Judge rules that families cannot hold gun company liable for Sandy Hook shooting

"Sandy Hook families cannot hold gun company liable in massacre, judge rules", 15 Oct 2016

A Connecticut judge ruled on Friday that a group of families cannot hold gun companies liable for manufacturing, distributing or selling the AR-15-style rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012.  The gun companies are protected by a 2005 federal law designed to shield gun companies from liability when their products are misused by criminals, Connecticut superior court judge Barbara Bellis ruled, granting the gun companies’ motion to strike the case...Gun rights advocates and gun companies say the law, which protects gun companies from liability “for the harm purely caused by criminal or unlawful use of firearm products”, is common sense...The defendants in the lawsuit include Bushmaster, the company that made the rifle; Camfour, a firearms distributor; and Riverview Gun Sales, the store where the gun was bought...To get around the shield law, lawyers for the Sandy Hook families had tried to argue that the manufacturer, distributor and dealer were all “negligent” to market and sell powerful military-style weapons to civilians.  The Connecticut judge rejected this argument...“Remington is pleased with the court’s decision today to strike the plaintiff’s complaint”...

Timeline