#SandyHook

On March 14th of this year, the Connecticut Supreme Court narrowly held that Remington Arms Company could be sued by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy. This holding was based on what the court majority called “one narrow legal theory.” What has been decided is that the plaintiffs are “entitled to have the opportunity to prove their … allegations”. To be clear, this is not a ruling against Remington in the sense that many believe it is. What has been determined is that the plaintiffs have offered one argument that the court has not deemed immediately worth dismissing.

Judge Barbara Bellis of the Superior Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut rejected a bid by Remington, Camfour Inc., and the East Windsor Gun Shop to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the families of the victims killed in the Sandy Hook massacre.  The original argument from Remington, Camfour Inc., and the East Windsor Gun Shop was that both the  Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act denied the Connecticut jurisdiction the ability to hear and decide the case.  Specifically that is one point in the language that the judge rejected–that the state court could not handle the case.