Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Remington Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting

Published on March 15, 2019
Duration: 5:55

This analysis by Colion Noir, a legal expert, details the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling allowing Newtown shooting victims' families to sue Remington. The ruling hinges on Remington's marketing of the AR-15, specifically allegations of promoting 'hyper-masculinity' and combat features. Noir critiques this as a shift from individual criminal responsibility to manufacturer liability, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for the entire firearms industry.

Quick Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that families of Newtown shooting victims can sue Remington, allowing the case to move forward based on allegations of irresponsible marketing of the AR-15 rifle. This decision challenges general federal immunity for gun manufacturers and could set a precedent for future lawsuits against the firearms industry.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling on Remington
  2. 00:32Marketing Liability and 'Hyper-Masculinity'
  3. 01:12Critique of Shifting Blame
  4. 01:45Legal Strategy: Discovery and Litigation
  5. 03:36Precedent for Accessory Manufacturers
  6. 04:47Inspiration for Copycat Lawsuits

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Connecticut Supreme Court rule regarding Remington and the Newtown shooting?

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that families of Newtown shooting victims can sue Remington. This is significant as it allows a case to proceed despite federal immunity generally protecting gun manufacturers since 2005.

On what grounds can Remington be sued for the Newtown shooting?

The lawsuit is proceeding based on allegations that Remington irresponsibly marketed the AR-15 rifle, specifically by promoting 'hyper-masculinity' and combat-designed features. The court is allowing a jury to decide if this marketing was indeed irresponsible.

What is the broader implication of the Connecticut ruling for the firearms industry?

This ruling could set a precedent for holding manufacturers and accessory companies liable based on their marketing. It may also be used as a tactic to force companies into expensive litigation and discovery, potentially draining the industry financially.

How does this ruling relate to personal accountability?

The speaker argues this ruling shifts blame from the individual criminal to the manufacturer and dealer, representing an erosion of personal responsibility. It's seen as a strategic move by gun control advocates.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Colion Noir

View all →