Parents of Las Vegas Massacre Victim Suing Colt, Ten Other Gun-Related Companies

The perpetrator of the Las Vegas massacre shot from his hotel room into a crowd of concert-goers. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

The parents of a woman killed at the Route 91 Harvest Musical Festival massacre in Las Vegas are suing Colt and ten other gun-related companies for what they’re calling “illegal, negligent, and wrongful conduct.”

“Our precious daughter was murdered and it’s only because of guns,” Jim Parsons told Washington State news outlet KIRO 7. His daughter, Carrie Parsons, was among the 58 people who died when a man opened fire on a crowded country music concert in 2017.

The lawsuit alleges that Colt along with seven other gun manufacturers as well as gun shops in Utah and Nevada advertised the ability of AR-15s to be easily modified to mimic machine gun fire. It cites one gun manufacturer that partnered with a bump stock company to offer an AR-15 with an “integrated” bump stock, and it mentions “dozens” of online videos demonstrating how to install a bump stock.

Even without the use of a bump stock, AR-15s are “thinly disguised” machine guns that manufacturers knew could be easily modified to produce automatic fire, the suit states.

“It was only a question of when – not if – a gunman would take advantage of the ease of modifying AR-15s to fire automatically in order to substantially increase the body count during a mass shooting,” the lawsuit states, according to the Associated Press. “Having created the conditions that made a mass shooting with a modified AR-15 inevitable, Defendant Manufacturers continued conducting business as usual.”

SEE ALSO: BREAKING: Connecticut Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Lawsuit against Remington to Move Forward

The lawsuit uses language and strategy similar to the suit being brought against Remington by families of Sandy Hook victims. In that case, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed on the grounds that Remington advertised its AR-15 Bushmaster rifle to promote its “militaristic and assaultive qualities.”

Lawyers for Carrie Parson’s family are similarly attacking the gun companies’ advertising tactics and believe gun makers should be held accountable.

The Parson’s lawyer, Seattle-based attorney Rick Friedman of Friedman Rubin PLLP, told KIRO that the defendants are partially responsible because “they are co-conspirators. They’ve worked for decades to get automatic weapons, weapons of war, into the hands of civilians, and that makes them culpable.”

“We’re not doing it for the money, and we’re definitely not doing it for the attention because we’re not comfortable with that,” Ann-Marie Parsons, Carrie’s mother, told KIRO. “We’re doing it because somebody has to do something.”

SEE ALSO: Connecticut State Rep Wants to Tax Ammunition at 50% to ‘Reduce Use’

Gun makers are largely protected from frivolous civil lawsuits by a 2005 law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA). The law has thus far succeeded in keeping anti-gun suits from moving forward, but attacking a company’s advertising—as opposed to its products—could provide the gun-control lobby with a useful loophole.

Commenting on the Sandy Hook case, Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling “strains logic, if not common sense.”

“This is like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles,” he said.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over four years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco. Follow him on Instagram @bornforgoodluck and email him at

{ 35 comments… add one }
  • MaximumMark May 1, 2020, 5:53 pm

    What the lawsuit plaintiff is saying trampled on the defendant’s First Amendment rights to free speech, so on that alone it has no legal basis.

    You can’t sue gun businesses because they promote their product’s ability to be effective in lethality. They are acting indignant because these products functioned reliably as advertised.

  • Kenneth Rene Gonzales May 1, 2020, 7:27 am

    Why don’t they sue the ALCOHOL COMPANIES, MUSIC INDUSTRY and VEGAS because their daughter was enticed to attend this SAFEGUARDED event …(CRICKETS)

  • Ron Miller July 15, 2019, 7:55 am

    Now the dumb ass judges will let people sue car companies for making cars that kill people who are stupid

  • Paul Wee July 7, 2019, 10:17 am

    some nutjob must have fast talked those parents into suing gun manufacturers – again! the only The only winner in this case is the lawyers, don’t you know!? Everybody knows tat guns cannot kill, just as cars cannot kill. But death by cars far out number deaths by guns – just look at stats from Highway safety Board! Is anyone suing auto makers? Duh!

  • Olen Biehl July 6, 2019, 3:34 pm

    Yep, I’ll get money from somebody. Might as well be the companies which have absolutely NOTHING to do with the shooting. These lawsuits should not even make it through the filing process.
    Common sense gun laws….common sense litigation!

  • Troop Emonds July 6, 2019, 2:09 am

    Judge should throw out the case as frivolous, and require the attorney of the parents to pay court expenses, and the defense attorney’s cost to the gun company.

    More to the point the attorney filing the case for the parents cannot be charged any fees at all.

    The ruling must be used to remind legal firms against attempting to bring stupid law suits!

  • James July 5, 2019, 9:43 pm

    Wow, the Democrats are already paying people off before the election! I wonder which one is going to back them first? And it makes me laugh when people say “we are not doing it for the money”, because that is exactly why their doing it! Also, why wait so long to take action on their part? Maybe it’s the new “ME TOO” movement! If he didn’t have guns he probably would have rented a box truck and filled it with explosives and ball bearings and parked it nearby! I’d take gunfire any day over a bomb!

  • Mr. Sparkles July 5, 2019, 7:34 pm

    My sympathies to Jim Parsons for the loss of his loved one. If Carrie had been killed by a drunk driver I am willing to bet they would not have even considered suing the liquor Mfg or the store that sold it to him/her or the trucking firm that delivered it to the store.

    Grow up and stop posturing.

  • JAY KEEFER July 5, 2019, 6:33 pm

    On the same note as that last paragraph !!!!!!!

    How about we all start suing ALL car makers every time a child dies in a HOT car. They all advertise better overall safety ratings making there cars safer for your family.

  • Qhorse13 July 5, 2019, 4:38 pm

    It just amazes me how the victims families want to blame a manufacturer in cases like this. It’s a sad day for everyone when something like this happens. But it’s NOT the manufacturers fault. It’s the delirious insane person that’s pulling the trigger. And now he’s dead so they don’t have that closure in their lives. They are mad ( and I don’t blame them ) I’d be mad too. But the anger must be taken out on the guilty party. Not the maker of the tool that was used to cause the damage. What if it had been pipe bombs? Would they sue the pipe manufacturers, the fitting companies for the end caps, and the wire companies for producing the wire that was used for the blasting caps? The gunpowder ( or whatever explosive element they used ) the blasting caps manufacturers, the cell phone companies used for detonation? If your going to bring a law suit, target the correct people. Could the venue had provided some sort of screening? Could it had been at an alternative location? Are they suing the venue people? I highly doubt it. They had an obligation to protect the attendees of their venue. Are they suing the music personnel for being on stage? People came to hear them sing so are they involved in this lawsuit? Where does their responsibility lay? See what I mean? It gets deeper and deeper, these frivolous suits. No one there had any responsibilities just as the gun manufacturers had no responsibility in the killings. They produce firearms cut and dry that simple. Their responsibility ends there. They have no more power to stop a insane person from doing such a thing as the car manufacturers have at stopping drunk drivers, or terroristic acts of running through a crowded area of people. And this claim of “someone has to do something”, yeah your right. Someone has to do something. But it needs to be the correct something. This is definitely not the correct way to do the “something”. This is the wrong “something” targeting the wrong people. Sue the estate of the man that did this. Sue his doctors for not seeing his behavior issues he more than likely displayed before this happened. But they know they won’t get any money from any of those either. And they say they aren’t Doug it for the money? I call BS on that too. They lost their daughter in a terroristic act of a insane person. There is NOTHING that can be done about that, as sad as that may be, it’s the truth. They want the money an they want to get the publicity and they want their daughter back. But only one of those is going to happen. And that’s the publicity. I hate to sound cold about it. But I’ve read about this since it’s happened and there isn’t anything that can be done legally (law on the books wise ) that can stop another attack. They can make up new laws and it’s just a piece of paper and it won’t physically stop another attack. California, New York, Chicago, New Jersey have some of the strictest laws on the books in this country regarding firearms and look a how many shootings that have happened in those states. None of those laws have stopped any shootings.

  • skipNclair July 5, 2019, 4:07 pm

    They have already lost their lawsuit and did so with their own words, I have read several articles on interviews they have done hoping to push their gun control agenda, and in at least one of those the mother says and I quote “someone killed our daughter.” She in her words says someone not a gun, admitting that guns do not kill people, people do. I was in the immediate area that night in Las Vegas, and saw nothing that would lead me to believe that this was nothing more then a false flag, I followed the reports and news on much of this, and again found the actions of not only on the night of the false flag but after by officials clearly show a false flag and coverup.

    • Irish-7 July 6, 2019, 1:11 am

      I don’t recall ever hearing the results of the investigation. The FBI was real quick to state the attack was not terrorism. So, what was the motive then?

  • Charles Conrad July 5, 2019, 3:45 pm

    More progressive led b.s.
    I had sympathy for the victims families until they try to take my rights away. These families have taken the enemies side and deserve no leniency. Are they in it for the money or are they stooges for the anti-American propaganda progressives.

  • ray July 5, 2019, 3:00 pm

    It’s all about disarmament they use the courts and legal system to pervert your rights. I can bumpfire with my finger are they gonna outlaw my hands?

  • John A Boutwell July 5, 2019, 2:11 pm

    No Mr. Parsons, your daughter died because a very angry and mentally ill man wanted to kill innocent people, guns were the means not the cause. He could have used an auto or bomb or many other methods.
    I fully understand your anger but, this is a mental health issue.
    Please put your efforts where they are needed and will do some good.

  • Dan Gore July 5, 2019, 1:27 pm

    Ok if this is how they want to play, then about a year and a half ago I had a mild heart attack. By their thinking, I should be able to sue any restaurant, grocery store or store I bought plates and eating utensils from. All auto crashes are the responsibility of all of the vehicle manufacturers, no matter what the cause. We all know that what I just said is ridicules, but they don’t seem to. My condolences to those who lost their loved ones, just don’t blame the tool,because the murder used it. If you are going to use their advertising methods,then all other companies add are also subject to the same scrutiny. We all know that we don’t want to go there. My 2 cents.

  • IPDAILY July 5, 2019, 1:09 pm

    Look this law suite is frivolous if people are able to sue for others misusing their product. No company will be safe. We will no longer be able to manufacture or buy, Cars, tractors, Airplanes, vacuum cleaners, hammers or power tools. Leftists ruin everything they touch including being lawyers.

  • Michael Sperry Sr July 5, 2019, 11:23 am

    This is simply a TROLL move so the news media can get off of Trump bashing, but only for other agenda items.

  • bill kuhlmann July 5, 2019, 11:15 am

    why isn’t Jim Parsons suing the hotel for allowing windows to be broken in order to fire from. lets not forget the contractor that built the hotel or the promoter who held a concert in an out door arena where the concert goers could be shot. why isn’t this tool of the anti constitution, anti bill of rights suing the owner, builder and material suppliers that built the concert venue and failed to provide protection from a shooter . this lawsuit is frivolous and illegal. Parsons is a useful idiot being taken advantage of by anti gunner propagandists. it will, however , provide a basis for suing any manufacturer whose product is used in a manner some disapproves of. take your retainer back and go home mr. parsons

  • Laughinghawg July 5, 2019, 10:57 am

    “We’re not doing it for the money, and we’re definitely not doing it for the attention because we’re not comfortable with that,” Ann-Marie Parsons, Carrie’s mother, told KIRO. “We’re doing it because somebody has to do something.” ……………. Bullsheets

  • John July 5, 2019, 10:56 am

    Another lawyer got a live one. This has been tried MANY times and no one has succeeded, but I guess the lawyers still get their fees.

  • Barry Bourgeois July 5, 2019, 10:33 am

    I guess if their child had been killed by an F-150 pick up they would bring suit against Ford Motor Co. Some liberal judge will rule in their favor but it will be overturned by a REAL judge.

  • Occams July 5, 2019, 10:16 am

    Now. If ONLY a 5.56 was actually used. Surprising you all buy into these things and don’t even recognize a 7.62 belt fed weapon with a 90-round sustained burst.

    Some ‘shooters’….

  • mtman2 July 5, 2019, 9:15 am

    Yes tho likely these parents were searched out + used as “tools” by the anti-2nd crew of spoilers…

  • mtman2 July 5, 2019, 9:11 am

    Very true = selfish human nature…

    Tho any good judge must throw such a case out on grounds that then anyone can sue any co. if their product was used to harm or kill…l

    Like a brick co. or owner of a bldg used to drop that brick = foolish suits must be nixed to protect all.

  • Rick Jankowski July 5, 2019, 8:46 am

    Isn’t there a law that prevents Manufacturer s from being sued in situations like this?

    • Darren Scholltz May 1, 2020, 5:27 am

      What is different about this law suit is that the legal theory is that the manufacturer is not being sued for making the gun..which is protected from liability. It is that the advertising used by the manufacturer entices certain prospective purchasers to buy the weapons for nefarious purposes. By the way, I believe that there are legitimate reasons to own a gun, but you right wing crackpots who think that having the right to plink rounds and “have fun” with weapons supercedes my right to feel safe are the real idiots of the world.

  • Chained July 5, 2019, 8:32 am

    So I guess all car manufacturers, baseball bat mfr’s, golf club mfr’s, knife mfr’s, rope mfr’s etc should all be sued when someone uses their products in ways other than the mfr’s intentions. There are laws on the books that prevent law suits against gun makers. This is just a ploy to tie up the system and these asinine suits should be refused to be heard in court.

  • Leighton Cavendish July 5, 2019, 6:32 am

    some lawyer is looking to become infamous…and rich…

  • Felipe J. Viera July 5, 2019, 4:15 am

    For once in this beautiful world of ours, will someone take responsibility for their own actions! Has everyone forgot the Newton’s laws of motion?
    Why doesn’t everyone take their own blame and accept it?

  • Jerry July 5, 2019, 4:09 am

    Suing the gun manufacturers for any shooting is like suing the spoon and fork manufacturers for making you fat.

  • Felipe J. Viera July 5, 2019, 4:08 am

    Shouldnt the parents be sued and held responsible for the deaths of their childrens actions? Colt and other gun companies are right beside the victims.

  • Trevor_Phillips July 5, 2019, 4:03 am

    I’m going to sue all these fast food places for making me fat.

  • Boomer July 5, 2019, 3:43 am

    It was a Chevy, someone stole it and drove it into a crowd to intentionally kill people. I’m going to sue all the auto makers for selling cars that can be driven off the street, over a curb and kill people.
    I get that people need “someone to blame” when they lose a loved one and want to hurt those they feel to be responsible but, sheesh, people. It won’t work, it’s just a publicity stunt. Get a freaking grip.

  • J Franks July 5, 2019, 3:12 am

    I twisted my ankle the other day. It hurt really badly. The shoe industry advertises that shoes will protect you. I’m going to sue them I guess.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend