Could the gun lobby’s power be slipping?

Families of those slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 learned March 14 the Connecticut Supreme Court will allow their lawsuit against the maker of the AR-15 rifle used by the shooter. (Photo by Bbjeter via Wiki Commons). On March 14, the Connecticut Supreme Court threw a wrench into gun law as the United States has come to know it. The justices, by a 4-3 vote, ruled that the firearms manufacturer Remington Arms can be sued over its marketing practices in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, in which Adam Lanza used a Remington rifle to kill 20 children and six adults. Lanza, 20, first killed his mother, then shot his way into the locked school before killing himself. The plaintiffs alleged that Remington Arms marketed its Bushmaster AR-15-style weapon for illegal and offensive purposes that violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. If the ruling stands, the case could serve as the model to bypass the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which severely restricts the public’s ability nationwide to sue gun sellers and manufacturers. Mark Gergen, associate dean at Berkeley Law, says the ruling was a bit surprising and might suggest that the gun lobby’s preeminence is slipping. Maybe. “I wasn’t shocked, but I was a little surprised to read that ruling,” Gergen says. “I was surprised they found a gap in the law.” Federal law normally protects gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits if their guns are used to commit a crime. There is an exception, however, if the company has been judged to have used deceptive marketing practices. And it was on those grounds that the Connecticut court decided that Remington Arms might be liable. Families of the victims claimed that the weapon used at Sandy Hook had been marketed as “the ultimate

Read more from our friends at the NRA...