Posted March 20, 2019 10:00 am by Comments

By Tom Knighton

When word broke last week that the Connecticut State Supreme Court decided to allow a lawsuit against Remington to go forward, despite the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, most of us were stunned. After all, federal law is pretty damn clear on the topic. A state supreme court can’t really change that.

Yet, they kind of did. At least in this instance.

Writing over at the National Review, David French argues it’s time for the Supreme Court to get involved.

Over the weekend, my colleague Kevin Williamson wrote an outstanding piece illuminating the ideology and opportunism behind a Connecticut Supreme Court opinion holding that the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting may be held liable for violating state unfair-trade-practices statutes. The legal reasoning behind the ruling, if applied broadly, would directly defy federal law and could potentially deal a staggering financial blow to firearms manufacturers and sellers in the United States.

In the simplest terms possible, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a lawsuit filed against Remington by the estates of nine Sandy Hook victims could proceed, based on the claim that the alleged “wrongful marketing” of the rifle used by …Read the Rest

Source:: Bearing Arms

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.