Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Suit to Proceed Against Remington

The suit alleges that Remington should be responsible for its marketing of the Bushmaster XM15-E2S allegedly used in the Sandy Hook massacre. (Photo: Public Domain/Newtown Police)

The Supreme Court has refused to dismiss a suit brought by family members of Sandy Hook victims against Remington Arms Company. The order, published today, denies certiorari but does not provide justification.

Family members of several victims killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre sued Remington in 2014 for the gun company’s alleged culpability in the murders. The Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed much of the families’ case earlier this year, but the court agreed with the portion of the suit that alleged Remington may have engaged in “unethical and irresponsible marketing practices.”

With today’s order from the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for the plaintiffs will be able to test whether a gun company can be held liable for how it markets a firearm that is later used in a crime.

Second Amendment Foundation Founder Alan Gottlieb told GunsAmerica via email that the Supreme Court will likely take the case if the lower courts rule against Remington.

Still, he does not find any merit in the narrower suit that was allowed to move forward.

“This suit is just plain wrong and should never have been allowed to proceed,” he said.

SEE ALSO: Supreme Court Denies Case Regarding ‘Illegal’ Suppressors

In the case’s first major test, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Remington cannot be held liable for simply selling its AR-style Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle that was allegedly used in the Sandy Hook massacre.

But they also ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) includes an exception that allows the lawsuit to be brought against the company’s marketing practices.

“Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct,” the court said. “It falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

At trial, Sandy Hook families cited examples of what they believe are “unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous” advertisements that extol the “the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle.” Furthermore, they argued, the Sandy Hook murderer was “especially susceptible to militaristic marketing” due to his aspirations of being in the military.

Gottlieb called that rationale “absurd” at the time.

“Did the advertising even remotely suggest that the Bushmaster is best for murdering people?” he asked. “That’s a stretch of credulity worthy of surgical elastic.”

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

“There is no evidence the killer was driven by any advertising whatsoever,” he continued. “This is an affront to the First Amendment as well as the Second. Even hinting that the killer was motivated in some way by an advertising message is so far out in the weeds that it may take a map for the court to find its way back.”

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a gun-related case this year out of New York City involving a now-repealed statue that prohibited transporting firearms outside city limits. Depending on how broadly the court rules, the case could affect concealed carry laws across the country.

As always, stay tuned for updates.

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

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over six 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 Tyler. Got a hot tip? Send him an email at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Rick February 21, 2022, 2:24 pm

    The only ruling here by a court was to allow certain parts of this case to proceed. It was settled outside of the court. I don’t believe that any precedence was established here other than Firearm manufacturers need to look at the way they advertise and learn from that. I can remember when certain types of ammunition would advertise that it could defeat body armor. There are some advertisements that from the manufacturers that need to be re thought. It’s not a good way to advertise a product. The damage done here will be on what it will cost the firearm manufacturers in insurance. This was such a tragic case for any firearm manufacturer to defend. First of all, because the victims were all so young and innocent. It struck at the hearts of everyone. We all know it was Lanza who is responsible. But with lawyers today. We need to re evaluate how we advertise. I remember a case with what I believe was a certain auto manufacturer in the 80’s. They had water getting into the engines of their 4×4 trucks. The defense that the manufacturer use was that the vehicle was not designed to go threw deep rivers where they believe the water got into the engine. The only problem was the commercial on TV displayed the 4×4 going through a river. The manufacture lost the case. I’m only saying is that our firearm industry needs to look at the way they advertise and do the adjustments.

  • glock19fan December 24, 2021, 3:04 pm

    As I recall, the shooter didn’t buy any guns; they belonged to his mother and he murdered her in order to get them. I see no merit whatsoever in that lawsuit.

  • Mart December 17, 2019, 3:19 pm

    So does that mean the marketing firm can be sued too!!!

  • Hey November 21, 2019, 7:08 am

    NJ is so STUPID. The lawsuits should be against the psychatric drug manufacturers and FDA for putting DRUGS KNOWN for VIOLENT outburst on the market! There is private research providing links between mass shootings and sucides with these drugs. The scum bag media stopped reporting the medication history of the mass shooters and the Government does not follow through with investigating the cause of the problem. The real problem is the Pharmaceutical Industry is the biggest lobbing industry in America by far and has killed more Americans than guns ever could with opiates alone, not to mention the mass shootings and suicides they are linked to.

    • glock19fan December 24, 2021, 3:15 pm

      You are right; the SSRI’s have a reputation for making some persons in some doses violent. If anyone is to be sued it should be Big Pharma. That won’t happen though; money talks.

  • Robert Lindberg November 17, 2019, 2:22 pm


    • Rick February 21, 2022, 1:59 pm

      It wasn’t a ruling. It was a settlement.

  • sam meola November 16, 2019, 9:24 pm

    how can you blame the manufacturer blame the guy who did it.

  • Gunny8541 November 16, 2019, 6:38 pm

    I sure hope they don’t show that Court room deputy holding the aledged AR that was supposedly used in this shooting. These cheese dick lawyers using advertising practices by Remington. They should really be going after the sheriff of that Court room deputy. She fell off the ugly tree and hit every dyke branch as she came down. The spiked hair and the typical male qualities these split tales think they have and need a badge and a gun. These cheese dick lawyers could get more money for these so called victim. I don’t think this shooting occurred. There’s way too much that has changed.

  • Carl November 16, 2019, 9:56 am

    So what next suit will be for the fork and spoon manufacturers for making people fat …

  • Stephen F Green November 15, 2019, 5:18 pm

    I was confused at first, It was the CONNECTICUT supreme court that ruled.

    • Don November 15, 2019, 7:01 pm

      SCOTUS passed on this aspect of the case. The lower court had already ruled on other aspects of the case, in favor of Remington. The plaintiff then appealed on the grounds that the advertising was bad. SCOTUS did not rule on the case, they simply said the lower, state court, can proceed on the advertising grounds and the lower court jury would decide the case. It will be hard to show Remington negligent in its advertising. Showing a SWAT officer isn’t a bad thing. Fighting oppressors isn’t a bad thing. One of the ads was actually for a non-AR rifle.

    • Andrew N. November 15, 2019, 11:44 pm

      Nope, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the lawsuit 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it could go forward, as the MARKETING practices are not protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. What a bunch of crap, as the Mother of the shooter bought the weapon and was killed by her son BEFORE he took it to Sandy Hook. So SHE bought it, not the shooter. How do you blame the advertising when the shooter NEVER PURCHASED THE WEAPON in question??? However, I still think the claim that the AR was used is B.S. My wife and I both remember the initial reports that the AR was found IN THE CAR, unused. The police were thanking God it wasn’t used at the damage would be more extensive, yadda, yadda, yadda. Then, all of a sudden, the story changed from handguns only to the AR. Even my Mom remembers, and she’s in her 80’s! Sounds like a conspiracy against the AR to me! I personally don’t own an AR, I love my AK, but this whole Sandy Hook story was shaky from the get-go.

  • Remember November 15, 2019, 4:16 pm

    Remember when this all happened. A police officer took the bushmaster of the trunk of the kids car. He check the the receiver and it wasn’t loaded. watch the original videos.

    • Don November 15, 2019, 4:57 pm

      NO. The gun in the trunk of Lanza’s car was a Saiga shotgun and two magazines. It was placed in the trunk by one of the first officers on-scene. Lanza left it in the passenger compartment of the car. The cop had the presence of mind to move it to the trunk and take the keys to the car. READ the report.

      • Andrew N. November 15, 2019, 11:46 pm

        I remember the first news reports, the cops thanking God the AR was left in the car or the damage would have been much worse than it was with the HANDGUNS the shooter used. The story changed later that day.

  • Scott November 15, 2019, 4:07 pm

    If the lawsuit is successful then one could sue any manufacturer if they feel the product can cause similar tendencies or outcomes. e.g Jeep showing its Wrangler driving fast through snow. Say someone does exactly that and hits another vehicle killing people? Jeep would be liable for misleading and irresponsible marketing practices?

  • johnnyraygun November 15, 2019, 2:33 pm

    Ford and all auto manufactures had better look out, Autos kill.

    • BR549 November 15, 2019, 5:07 pm

      Guns don’t kill people, politicians do.

      Had the legislature and judiciary actually been enforcing existing laws, the resulting sense of social stability would have made it unnecessary for these professional chair warmers to keep making more stupid laws just to give the ignorant voters the illusion of due diligence. Instead, the mind-numbing swarm of USELESS pieces of legislation would not be creating so many confused and disenfranchised citizens.

      Take God out of the schools and then add to that problem a few psychopathic globalists and a few False Flags, and you can easily explain EVERY SINGLE event that has taken place over the last 100 years.

  • Kivaari November 15, 2019, 1:40 pm

    I notice several people posted inaccurate information regarding this case. It would pay for people to actually read the CSP report and appendix and the states attorney report before commenting.
    Lanza shot his mother with a .22 LR rifle and left it at the home.
    There was a shotgun in Lanza’s car, left in the passenger area, found by police and secured in the trunk.
    Lanza killed everyone with the .223 rifle.
    Lanza shot himself with a 10mm pistol.
    Lanza did not fire the 9mm pistol at the crime scene.

    • really November 15, 2019, 4:09 pm

      If you remember when it happened, a police officer took the AR out of the trunk of the car. its was never used. watch the real video.

      • Don November 15, 2019, 4:59 pm

        NO. There was a Saiga shotgun in the trunk of the Honda. The SHOTGUN was never used. Lanza killed his school victims with the above illustrated Bushmaster rifle.

        • Jimmy November 16, 2019, 12:26 am

          That’s irrelevant either way, this is still an attack on our first and second amendment rights.

  • John Boscogolvitch November 15, 2019, 1:16 pm

    Alledged is right. Along with the second amendment, also evaporating is the first. Dare to question the narrative of Sandy Hoax and find yourself shadowbanned…or worse?

  • Dolores Ybarra November 15, 2019, 12:54 pm

    My heart goes out to the families that were effective in this sad incident. It is not the makers of the weapon that murdered their loved ones, it is the individual and today’s society that caused it! The weapon was only the tool. If you put a hammer on a table and leave it there, it’s just a hammer, unless it’s picked up and used to nail some nails in the process of making something. Now, if it’s picked up by someone that wants to cause harm and starts bashing heads, now it becomes a weapon. That said for any object that can be used to cause bodily harm. Are the makers of such objects future targets for lawsuits? Weapons do kill and from a distance also. The problem is our society with it’s lack of respect for someone else opinion or life. I am a pro-gun individual with great respect for life, whether it be human or animal. Yes, these shooting must end but I feel that the issue is today’s social norms, not the tool used to express someone’s opinion or hate towards others! Again, my sincere condolences to the victims family and anyone else effected.

  • Leonard Stephen Feinman November 15, 2019, 12:32 pm

    This lawsuit has a life of its own and continued to the Supreme Court on appeal. Whenever a lawsuit is lost, there is an appeal process to a higher court. Usually, after many rejections, the suit is dropped, but not if it would later be an issue.
    Most cases are not deemed significant enough for the court to consider, but gun issues will continue until people realize that guns don’t cause violence, and the most vulnerable people are those who can’t defend themselves.
    If I purchase a product such as a gun or a car, and it is defective, I can have a reasonable expectation that the manufacturer is responsible. If I misuse that car or a weapon and intentionally take a life, then I am the guilty one because I abused that tool.
    The most unsafe place to remain is a “Gun Free Zone.”

    • nathan h fryer November 15, 2019, 1:21 pm

      Well said Leonard, I could not agree with you more…How can (ANY) inanimate object be held responsible…without being put into motion by something or someone creating that motion..??

  • Stephen Rutland November 15, 2019, 12:21 pm

    I just can’t see where the gun is at fault, it was the human behind the gun. This is what we need to control is the sick people that needs looking at.

    • nathan h fryer November 15, 2019, 1:27 pm

      Mr. Rutland…You are absolutely 1,000,000,000% right!!!…THEY!…(the broken brain ones) haven’t figured it out yet….They lack common scents.

  • Walleye November 15, 2019, 12:16 pm

    Seems odd that with 5 of the 9 justices being either neutral or conservative, that they would have rejected hearing this bogus case. They should have taken it head on and killed it forever. Now it will drag on in a lower court with an uncertain outcome.

    Thank God we have president Trump, who will have the change to replace at least 1-2 more if he is re-elected. This is why elections matter. Just ask the demoncraps… They can’t win, so they litigate everything in order to get themselves back into power.

    • nathan h fryer November 15, 2019, 1:35 pm

      AMEN! Walleye….It’s ridiculous to hold a court case over an inanimate object….But yer right Mr.Trump is going to make them see the light!

  • Rick November 15, 2019, 12:09 pm

    Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but I remember a spokesperson for the responding LE agency stating that the AR rifle never left the trunk of the car Lanza used to drive to the school. That he used two handguns with “high capacity” magazines. So why is Remington being sued? Shouldn’t it be the makers of the handguns? Either way, total b.s. If anyone should be held accountable it should be his moronic mother who thought it was a good idea to show her mentally disturbed son how firearms work. Unfortunately, she was the first person he killed. Do I have that right?

    • Kivaari November 15, 2019, 1:26 pm

      NO. Lanza used the XM15E2S rifle to kill all the victims. The gun in the trunk of the car was a shotgun, placed there by a police officer, after he found it in the passenger area of Lanza’s car. He locked it in the trunk and took the keys. Lanza carried a 10mm and 9mm pistols. He killed himself with the 10mm and never fired the 9mm. I recommend everyone read the official CSP report.

    • nathan h fryer November 15, 2019, 1:42 pm

      That’s why I love this country….I’m an Army vet and through out my life I have see people stand for a good cause…But THIS is another witch hunt…FOR NOTHING!! that will have any good come from it

  • ~ Occams November 15, 2019, 12:01 pm

    Now….if only Sandy Hoax was ‘real’ and not a drill on a closed and condemned school. YEA. REALLY. School records prove that.

    But hey; Believe politicians with anti-gun agendas and ‘your’ MSM, right?


    • Kivaari November 15, 2019, 1:27 pm

      The attack was quite real. Hoaxers have serious mental issues.

      • JOHN J Pellegrino November 17, 2019, 12:37 pm

        I followed this VERY closely and I am not sure it wasn’t a HOAX towards the agenda of Gun collection. I will watch this trial against Remington, very closely also, if it proceeds and that could be a good thing in a way because enough information could come out to paint a very different picture of what the public thinks it knows. When reporters were interested in doing the story on the Sandy Hook shooting, they were completely shut out, no one would talk to them, so why was that? The reporters will jump on this trial, I suspect.

  • pete November 15, 2019, 11:44 am

    No one, no company, no politician, no entity should be above the law. Special protections are wrong.

    • Don November 15, 2019, 3:14 pm

      PLCAA doesn’t extend special protections to the firearms industry, it just states what is considered normal tort law. It is the same as not being able to sue the car dealer for selling a drunk driver a car that then crashes into you.

  • Bob B November 15, 2019, 11:27 am

    Sounds like the lawyers have forgotten a few facts in the story, namely, that the kid was mentally deranged, a shooting video game fanatic, and isolated from the public by his mother. Add to that the fact that it was his mother’s rifle, and that she let him have access to it, an under-aged, mentally challenged boy. He killed her first, then moved on to the thing she had loved, the school. Sad, but not the gunmakers fault, the community has to ask itself why she did what she did to her son to make this kid a monster.

    • Kivaari November 15, 2019, 1:28 pm

      Lanza was old enough to have a rifle or shotgun.

    • Don November 15, 2019, 3:35 pm

      Lanza was autistic. He had only been on drugs years earlier for about 3 days or less. He reacted badly to medication and his mother refused to try different medications. At the time of the shooting he was totally drug free – and had been for years. You could say Mrs. Lanza created him, in that she did not seek adequate help over the years. With his autism, perhaps nothing could have been done to stabilize his moods.

  • Kole November 15, 2019, 11:09 am

    Sweet does this mean that someone can sue, um I don’t know Dodge for marketing the demon or the hell cat as a street legal race car? I mean the commercials show them drag racing and drifting around corners. So if I crash that means my family can sue the car manufacturer for my stupidity. As much as I am saddened by what happened at Sandy Hook, this is complete bull shit. I hope the families get this shoved right back down they’re throats. I think the supreme Court is actually just setting this case up to be destroyed at the highest court. Hopefully anyway.

    • nathan h fryer November 15, 2019, 1:52 pm

      Well so far I’m reading some very good responses to this mis-guided event…I sure the hell hope that the BIGGEST argument during the case is that it was human interaction that created this tragedy…NOT THE GUN!!

  • Brandon F. November 15, 2019, 11:03 am

    Well I guess, I will be able to sue Chevrolet now if I am in a car accident while driving down a dirt road or snowy mountain pulling a trailer! As seen on TV…How does this make any sense!!!! It doesn’t!! When will we as a country bring back accountability for ones own action!! It always has to be someone else’s fault!

  • walt morris November 15, 2019, 10:33 am

    even the dumbest judge in the state of connecticut has to know this is a crock of crap that remington should be held responsible for selling a gun to a woman who has it stolen by here son who murders his mother with that gun. it is nothing but an effort by the communist,liberal,progressive, democrats to destroy a company that has done nothing but support our country and government to the best of their ability. it makes me sick to read that there are people in this country who are free to spew their bs and threaten one of the best companies our country has ever had.

    • Kivaari November 15, 2019, 1:30 pm

      Lanza shot his mother with a .22 LR Savage rifle, not the Bushmaster.

  • Cowboy Dave November 15, 2019, 10:27 am

    I still remember how that AR was first found in the trunk of the car, then they found it by the front door, and finally it was found inside. I also find it hard to believe how fast they tore that school down, the parents were never interviewed (crisis actors don’t count) and not one picture was leaked. NOT ONE! You’d think the Left would be using that propaganda for years but the Sandy Hook story died very quickly when all the above points and more were brought up. I am by no means a conspiracy theorist but this is the one time I am.

    • Kivaari November 15, 2019, 1:33 pm

      NO. The Bushmaster was found in the school. It is pictured with this article. There was a shotgun in the trunk of the Honda. It was put there by a police officer. He found it in the Honda and secured it and took Lanza’s keys early in the event. The helicopter shot shows it still in the trunk, along with 2 magazines.

    • Don November 15, 2019, 5:21 pm

      Hundreds of photographs have been released showing the crime scenes. CT passed a law that directed that no photographs of the dead can be shown. Parents were used to identify their children. The school building was old and in need of expensive repairs. The community voted to tear it down and build a new Sandy hook School. The Lanza home was also razed. It is really obvious that you have not read the reports about Sandy Hook.
      What would the parents have to add to a report if they had not been present during the shooting. Police interview witnesses. Only one parent was at the school during the shooting and he was both detained and interviewed.

      • Jay November 16, 2019, 6:53 am

        Why would you need to pass a law so victims dead bodies can’t be shown, durr, because there were none! The story changed more than a person changes their socks. Why would most if not all the people with children involved in the incident be recent and new to the area? Why were the security cameras and security system be removed from the school months before the event? Why would the school be listed as no longer used and scheduled to be torn down before the event? Blindly believing the news narrative and government cronies will get you no where!

  • Mark Harris November 15, 2019, 10:27 am

    The federal government passed a law that you could not sue a gun manufacturer for what a person does with a legally or illegal gun. That supreme court is overstepping its bounds. Google
    Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”

  • Andy November 15, 2019, 10:24 am

    Well that won’t go far as the rifle was sold to his MOTHER! Should be tossed on those grounds alone.

    • Edward Miels November 15, 2019, 4:36 pm

      It’s about time someone got it…..mama bought it….son stole it

  • STEVE C. November 15, 2019, 10:06 am

    I wasnt aware that the PLCAA ruling allowed an exception in the case of marketing. Once again, they and we settle for a compromise to get part of what is guaranteed according to 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. So whom is responsible for leaving this little back door open?! Where the PLCAA should have settled it, it does not. Be woked. The details matter.
    A word of advise and encouragement to my fellow Constitutional brothers and sisters: IMMEDIATELY stop exhibiting fear of our firearms being taken away. Instead of responding with wimpers and complaints, assure “them” in your reactions and responses that “we” are not surrendering our firearms regardless of what law is passed or what agency attempts to tell us to do so. Your worries are taken as fear and that type of oppression is what the left preys upon. Freedom is not free, its not given, it is fought for and KEPT. ” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
    Read the federal papers, follow the communication from our founding fathers regarding the 2nd A. They define clearly the terminology and reasoning that is being muddled today. What is being attempted today in regards to discrediting and destroying the US Constitution, is what they were protecting then.

  • Merlin Karger November 15, 2019, 9:57 am

    Even our judges and courts are filled with snowflakes and anti-Americans now. How sad.

  • Eric S. November 15, 2019, 9:48 am

    First and foremost a company cannot be held liable for a persons mental illness unless it can be proven that their actions directly or indirectly created said illness.

  • Kane November 15, 2019, 9:36 am

    So violent video games are NOT a factor with the spree/rampage killers but the marketing firearms might be a key factor.

  • tom monk November 15, 2019, 9:12 am

    I think that the Supreme Court has opened a door they will regret In reality anyone who produces a finished product is now liable if some one does not use it in a safe manor

  • John M Denney November 15, 2019, 9:10 am

    Since the gun belonged to the mother and was stolen by the user, how does marketing come into play here?

  • PB- dave November 15, 2019, 8:57 am

    So the court has said a suit may go forward, wouldn’t that also open the door for similar suits against makers of cell phones, alcoholic products, high performance automobiles and parts, power tools, 3D printers and computer driven devices, cameras, drones, etc…..
    ANY item used improperly by a minor (or adult) that inflicts harm or death on another intentionally or unintentionally…… ?
    America needs to wake up. No one seems to think they are responsible for their actions, it’s always the fault of a situation or an object.
    The only ones not responsible are babies/small children, the senile, and those that are truly mentally void, and we have a responsibility as a society to care for them.

  • joe sorrento November 15, 2019, 8:54 am

    I think that is ridiculous to involve Remington. If that’s the case, then any time a person gets killed by a car the the automaker should be responsible. It’s not the weapon! It’s the insane individual!

  • aqasprt November 15, 2019, 8:53 am

    I’ve never seen a gun manufacturer advertise in support of mass homicide! What’s next? Bats, cars, hammers? Those have caused more homicide deaths than guns. A self-driving vehicle case has already been decided on driver error, not vehicle error due to driver watching a video and not paying attention to the road. Would it not be questioned why during the vehicle in motion that the video player is operational? The driver video system in my SUV shuts off when the vehicle is in motion from the factory, granted it is not an automated vehicle but the safety system is in place to prevent a distraction. I realize two totally different subjects, but where is the line drawn between the personal responsibility of the operators and equipment such as in the car case. Companies will end up ending commerce with the U.S. if their product could be used for something other than it’s intended use. Yes, I understand guns kill. Self-protection and constitutional use is much different from purposeful murder.

  • Dan Martin November 15, 2019, 8:37 am

    Do they have any idea what kind of a “can of worms” they are opening? Given this you could sue a car company if that kind of car was used in the commission of a crime or a fast food place because ate to much and got sick, not that the food was bad the person just ate to much. You could sue a boat maker because you hit a stump and the boat sank. It removes the responsibility of the user of a product. You could sue a golf club maker, or a baseball bat maker or a hammer maker and the list goes on and on. You should not be able to sue a manufacturer because someone missuses their product.

  • Terry Constance November 15, 2019, 8:28 am

    When will the courts once again start holding humans responsible for their crimes?
    Auto-draft juvenile and adult idiots and put them through military training when they can’t cope with school etc.
    If they can’t be made into respectable and responsible humans, disintegration from society.

  • John November 15, 2019, 8:23 am

    More BS!! How long till car manufactures can get sued over A drunk driver killing someone or cell phone company’s getting sued for people causing wrecks just because someone was using their brand phone? This is stupid. The world has gone stupid!!

  • John Reinikainen November 15, 2019, 7:38 am

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.
    There is a law protecting manufacturers and the Supreme Court is going against an existing law.
    The manufacturer didn’t sell the item to the shooter or the shooters mother. The weapon wasn’t kept in a safe place i.e. a safe so it shouldn’t fall on the mfg.

  • OldOutdoorsGuy November 15, 2019, 7:34 am

    This is just one of many examples where the our justice system does not want to wake up one morning and find egg on their faces if they don’t comb through each and every filament of possibility on each side in a case such as Sandy Hook. I would hope that, at the end of the day, those learned justices sitting on our highest court would find the objective honesty and background experience, which any person sitting on the Supreme bench, should know to be the law of the land and rule this case in favor of our country.

    IMHO, this case, as the contents of which has been narrowed down by the lower courts, stands about as strong of a case as accusing a company we’ll call Freez-ur-own-Pop of directly contributing to the death of a child who has died of lead poisoning from the city water supply from which the water to make the frozen treats came. Attempting to put blame in the wrong place does not rid the courts OR the accuser of the responsibility of presenting the truthful facts as they stand.

  • DOUG Clarke November 15, 2019, 7:32 am

    where can I send some money for the help on legal fees?
    “I Love my country, I fear my Government” I own and legally obtained my firearms. I continue to be vigilant in the protection of our 1st amendment, which is protected by our 2nd amendment which allows me to be free. For the cost has been overwhelming in the price of Lives given for these rights, and I will not let them be taken away with a piece of paper, a gavel and a political will.
    I am a NRA member, a USCCA member, and an American, and Yes I own a Bible.

  • OldOutdoorsGuy November 15, 2019, 7:27 am

    This is just one of many examples where the our justice system does not want to wake up one morning and find egg on their faces if they don’t comb through each and every filament of possibility on each side in a case such as Sandy Hook. I would hope that, at the end of the day, those learned justices, sitting on our highest court, would find the objective honesty and background experience, which any person sitting on the Supreme bench should know to be the law of the land, and rule this case in favor of our country.

    IMHO, this case, as the contents of which has been narrowed down by the lower courts, stands about as strong of a case as accusing a company we’ll call Freez-a-Pop of directly contributing to the death of a child who has died of some kind of exotic poisoning from the city water supply from which the water to make the frozen treats came. Putting blame in the wrong place does not rid the courts OR the accuser of the responsibility of presenting the truthful facts as they stand.

  • Peter Pomazon November 15, 2019, 7:27 am

    These jurists will use the same logic that allowed them to find abortion in a founding document that guarantees “life, liberty &the pursuit of happiness”….l

  • Jay November 15, 2019, 7:20 am

    They just can’t let the sandy hook hoax go bye bye. If I was Remington I would hire some pit-bull lawyers and demand all the evidence of the sandy hook hoax, all the coroners records, pictures, witnesses, all the people supposedly there as witnesses and prove once and for all the biggest anti-gun hoax. Time to take the gloves off and get nasty! The so called supreme court is nothing more than a political heap of bought off douchbags , including the fake conservative judges!

    • Don November 15, 2019, 2:57 pm

      OH Please! Sandy Hook was not a hoax. READ the official reports. Even the states attorney report is good in its own right. But the CSP report and importantly the appendix cover the even very well.

      • Jay November 16, 2019, 6:43 am

        Oh Please! get a grip on life, if you believe the government and their anti-gun/disarmament hoaxes I won’t be visiting you in the internment camp! Far, far more proof/evidence of the hoax than a real event!

  • Gerald Robinson November 15, 2019, 6:51 am

    While I am not a lawyer, but a believer that this is a foolish lawsuit, I think it should proceed, to prevent future law suite of this type, don’t think Remington or any firearm or ammo seller is responsible for the actions of a person who uses the product they make, or the business who sells the items.

  • Rob November 15, 2019, 6:34 am

    Its really ignorant to sue Remington for that; that’s like saying “i’m suing Budweiser because i got in accident with someone who received a DUI.”

  • Kobi November 15, 2019, 6:32 am

    Please don’t get me wrong, I feel for the victims and there families but suing a gunmaker seems a bit much. People are killed by drunk drivers, are the car or alcohol companies getting sued? What happen if someone goes crazy with a Black and Decker nail gun and hurts others with it? Does that mean Home Depot with be sued as well? Just does not make sense to me at all.

  • Wizard November 15, 2019, 6:24 am


  • Gary Swaboda November 15, 2019, 6:17 am

    Guns don’t kill people!
    People kill people!
    And if not with guns it will be something else!
    All they are ever trying doing to do is allow the criminals to carry weapons and not the good citizens to protect themselves!

  • Tom November 15, 2019, 6:02 am

    Moral relativism and postmodernism have converged upon the reasoning faculties of our society to the point that any quest for truth and justice is and will be forever jaded and shaded by predetermined subjectivism.

    In other words…”you’re always wrong, I’m always right, it’s not red it’s green because I say so”….or “you are guilty until proven innocent”. God help leaders to wake up.

  • Daniel D Umbenhower November 15, 2019, 5:56 am

    So than anybody that’s had family killed by drunk drivers should be able to sue the alcohol companies. That’s the same thing the Sandy Hook families are doing. Remington didn’t load the gun, drive the idiot there, or pull the trigger. You dumbasses don’t blame the airlines for 9-11. So if you want to be fair all those families that died in 9-11 should get a lawsuit against the airlines.

  • Dr Motown November 15, 2019, 5:15 am

    Since the deranged teenager never left a note or manifesto, how the hell can the plaintiffs prove it was the fault of marketing? He probably heard some voices coming out of the heater vents telling him to kill his mom and steal her legally purchased firearms

  • Dr Bury November 15, 2019, 5:11 am

    How is Remington supposed to know what goes on in the mind of a deranged teenager? The weapon was marketed to and purchased by his mother, a law abiding citizen who passed her 4473 check. As far as we know, the nut job teenager probably heard voices coming from the air conditioning system, ordering him to kill. SMDH

  • Andrew S Franko November 15, 2019, 4:25 am

    Hey Supreme Court, Remington Arms didn’t pull the trigger. Some nut case who should not have had access to the firearm in the first place, thanks to his mommy, pulled the trigger. Wake up fools.

  • Andrew S Franko November 15, 2019, 4:09 am

    Why is our Justice system going after Remington Arms because some mental case used there product to murder people. Do they go after Ford when someone deliberately mows down a group of people with an F-150? NO!!! It’s not Ford or the trucks fault. It’s the Goddamn nut case driving it or swinging it or setting fire to it OR PULLING THE FUCKING TRIGGER of it!!! Lets see a show of hands of everyone who has seen a Remington model 870 floating through the air shooting people. Nada!

Send this to a friend