The Connecticut Supreme Court’s March 14 decision to allow a lawsuit to proceed against the manufacturer, distributor, and seller of the assault-style rifle that was used to kill 26 people in December 2012 at Sandy Hook School has drawn many comments.

Contacted by telephone on March 18 at Remington Arms Company’s Alabama facility, Remington spokesman Eric Suarez was asked for the firm’s comment on the Supreme Court decision. “No sir, we have no comment,” Mr Suarez said.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a Newtown-based trade association for the US firearms industry, issued a statement on the court decision March 14.

The NSSF said, in part, “In a strongly worded and well-reasoned dissent, Chief Justice Robinson rejected the [court] majority’s overly broad interpretation of the scope of the limited exception, which is contrary to legislative text, canons of statutory interpretation, and the legislative history of the [Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act]. That federal law, also known as PLCAA, provides certain legal immunity to gunmakers for criminal acts committed with the firearms which they manufacture.

“The [court] majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the [legal] exception. As the trade association for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation filed a [legal] brief in support of the defendants in this case and both respectfully disagrees with and is disappointed by the court’s majority decision,” NSSF said.

NRA Comment

Also, the National Rifle Association (NRA) commented on the court decision. The statement was issued by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

The NRA said, in part, “The Connecticut Supreme Court created a dangerous new exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a strong safeguard for our right to keep and bear arms.”

“Repealing or judicially nullifying the PLCAA has been a priority for the gun ban lobby ever since the law was enacted in 2005. [The court] decision, while not binding beyond Connecticut, provides a possible road map for those hoping to circumvent the PLCAA’s protections against frivolous and untested legal claims against the firearms industry,” it adds.

“Gun control activists, however, have long sought to hold firearms manufacturers and sellers accountable for the crimes of third-parties who obtain and illegally use the guns they sell. The theory would be similar to the victim of a drunk driver suing the manufacturer or dealer of the vehicle the driver happened to be operating at time,” according to the NRA.

“The PLCAA was enacted to protect the firearms industry against a highly-orchestrated and coordinated series of lawsuits that sought to either bankrupt the industry or force it to ‘voluntarily’ adopt the sorts of measures gun control activists had unsuccessfully sought to impose by legislation,” the NRA adds.

CAGV Comments

In a statement, the group known as Connecticut Against Gun Violence (CAGV) said, “In a momentous ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court cleared the way for the lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook families against gun manufacturers to move forward.”

“The ruling will force the companies to reveal internal communications that they have fought to keep out of the public eye. You may recall that it was the opening of cigarette company internal records that led to the sweeping multi-billion dollar settlement against that industry,” it added.

“[CAGV] applauds the courage and tenacity of the Sandy Hook families and their expert [legal] representation,” it said.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit comprise one survivor of the shooting incident and the estates of nine people who died. They are surviving teacher Natalie Hammond, and the estates of teacher Victoria Soto, teacher’s aide Rachael D’Avino, substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau, and school psychologist Mary Sherlach, as well as the estates of students Daniel Barden, Jesse Lewis, Benjamin Wheeler, Noah Pozner, and Dylan Hockley.

The gun manufacturer defendants in the case are variously known as the Remington Arms Company, Remington Outdoor Company, Bushmaster Firearms International, and Freedom Group, among others. Other defendants are gun distributor Camfour Inc and gun seller Riverview Sales Inc.