On Friday, April 15, Judge Barbara Bellis of the Connecticut State Superior Court denied to dismiss a lawsuit against Bushmaster Firearms International, the manufacturer of an AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook school shooting. Remington Arms Company and Bushmaster Firearms, the two companies named in the suit, argued that the suit, issued by nine of the families of victims and one injured teacher, should be thrown out because a 2005 law protects gun manufacturers from liability in the case of criminal use of their product. Judge Bellis’s ruling does not give validity to the arguments of the lawsuit; it is focused on whether the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Josh Koskoff, one of the leading lawyers representing the families, said that the suit, “marks a huge victory for the Sandy Hook families in their effort to hold gun companies responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre…” and that “the families look forward to continuing their fight in court.” The lawsuit makes several points accusing Bushmaster and Remington of wrongdoing. First, the plaintiffs accuse the gun manufacturers of negligible entrustment, meaning that the company wrongfully entrusted a harmful product within the hands of someone who should not have it. Normally, the “negligible entrustment” exception to the 2005 law (granting some immunity to gun manufacturers) would be employed if the company entrusted their dangerous products to an illegal or notably irreputable distributor. In addition, the suit criticizes the AR-15, questioning why it is available to the civilian population. The families claim in their suit that the rifle’s large ammunition capacity and ability to fire rapidly enable mass murderers to inflict “unparalleled civilian carnage.”
Although the lawsuit may be allowed to proceed, as it was confirmed that the court would have jurisdiction over this subject, relative to federal and state law, many are critical of the suit and its claims. First, many find fault with the assumptions about the AR-15 rifle. The suit hopes to identify the weapon as exceptional to the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which denies liability to manufacturers in the case of a criminal use). The AR-15 in reality is not what the suit describes it as: a military-style weapon with no reasonable self-defense utility. In fact, the AR-15 has been deemed an acceptable rifle by the government on several occasions. It is a semi-automatic weapon, which since the National Firearms Act of 1934, is completely legal and common. In addition, the AR-15 has been celebrated by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, founded in 1903. The AR-15, since its introduction in the 1960s, has been widely used in the federal government’s Civilian Marksmanship Program and touted as one of the most practical and reliable by CMP instructors. The lawsuit will fail to circumvent the 2005 PLCAA because ironically the government has been asserting the validity of the AR-15 as a civilian-acceptable rifle for years. In addition, the CMP has endorsed a more exceptional weapon, the M1 garand, a WWII battle rifle, called the “greatest battle implement ever devised” by General George S. Patton. Although it is rarely used today, the M1 Garand was widely popular in the 50s, 60s, and 70s as a part of the CMP. Today, the CMP still allows the use of the M1 Garand’s successor, the M14 (when rendered semi-auto only), which was widely used in the early stages of the Vietnam War before it was replaced by the M16. To compare the three weapons, the M1 Garand is the most lethal, firing a 30.06 cartridge round, while the M14 uses a slightly lighter round, the .308 cartridge. And finally, the AR-15, paling in comparison, fires a .223 cartridge (along with some other similarly sized calibers), and has never been used in any significant military conflict. The lethality argument - the notion that the AR-15 is too deadly for civilian use - is dubious, because all guns are lethal, and on the spectrum of lethality, the AR-15 is not even close to the most deadly rifle available to the public.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) clearly provides the legal basis to refute the claims of this lawsuit. It was designed to deter such accusations in the first place. There is a clause in the PLCAA which states that if the arms manufacturer negligently entrusts their dangerous product in the wrong hands, they could become liable. However, negligent entrustment could not be applied to a situation in which the weapon went from the factory to a distributor, then to a retail store, then to a law-abiding eligible citizen (the mother of Adam Lanza), who then became responsible for her son’s actions. A more plausible example of negligible entrustment would be a car dealer negligently entrusting a car to a teenager without a driving permit or license.
The PLCAA resurfaced when Bernie Sanders was asked about his position. He voted for the law in 2005 and continues to support it. When asked in the context of this particular lawsuit, He said “No, I don’t, but I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people.” The attention from the democratic race, coupled with Judge Bellis’s ruling on Friday, should bring this case into the national spotlight, adding another complex facet to the guns debate. However, this attention does not change the fact that the PLCAA completely shields the gun manufacturers from any liability and any claims of exceptions by the families are utterly false.
Although the lawsuit should not proceed based on the established laws, especially the PLCAA, it still sparks a controversial ethical argument. This case could be related to the NFL’s ongoing concussion debacle. The NFL, however, is generally at fault for withholding scientific evidence and facilitating dangerous actions while aware of the side-effects. In the case of Bushmaster, they have not done any clear wrongdoing, like in NFL case. In a similar case in terms of public interest, the tobacco industry was forced to make a “lump sum” bail settlement when state lawsuits reached an unfortunate level for their public relations. The overwhelming scientific evidence showing the terrible effects of smoking coupled with the state’s argument and statistics of irrational health care prices as a result of the smoking-related diseases crippled the industry domestically and forced them to capitulate. Although the gun manufacturing industry is not currently liable by the legislation, public opinion may force them to settle.
For a while, before the state got involved, cigarette companies were able to refute the accusations of smokers by claiming that it was their choice to smoke. In the case of Remington and Bushmaster, it is only when the AR-15 is in the hands of a criminal that it becomes a dangerous and harmful accessory, like any weapon. A recent FBI Uniform Crime study revealed that only roughly a quarter of all the 12,000 gun related firearms used a rifle of any kind. In addition, anecdotes and professional opinions have suggested that the AR-15 is one of the best self-defense options available. While it’s understandable that survivors seek to pin blame upon the manufacturer of the firearm involved in such a tragedy, it is ultimately inappropriate to hold the manufacturer criminally liable or ethically at fault.
On Friday, April 15, Judge Barbara Bellis of the Connecticut State Superior Court denied to dismiss a lawsuit against Bushmaster Firearms International, the manufacturer of an AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook school shooting. Remington Arms Company and Bushmaster Firearms, the two companies named in the suit, argued that the suit, issued by nine of the families of victims and one injured teacher, should be thrown out because a 2005 law protects gun manufacturers from liability in the case of criminal use of their product. Judge Bellis’s ruling does not give validity to the arguments of the lawsuit; it is focused on whether the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Josh Koskoff, one of the leading lawyers representing the families, said that the suit, “marks a huge victory for the Sandy Hook families in their effort to hold gun companies responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre…” and that “the families look forward to continuing their fight in court.” The lawsuit makes several points accusing Bushmaster and Remington of wrongdoing. First, the plaintiffs accuse the gun manufacturers of negligible entrustment, meaning that the company wrongfully entrusted a harmful product within the hands of someone who should not have it. Normally, the “negligible entrustment” exception to the 2005 law (granting some immunity to gun manufacturers) would be employed if the company entrusted their dangerous products to an illegal or notably irreputable distributor. In addition, the suit criticizes the AR-15, questioning why it is available to the civilian population. The families claim in their suit that the rifle’s large ammunition capacity and ability to fire rapidly enable mass murderers to inflict “unparalleled civilian carnage.”
Although the lawsuit may be allowed to proceed, as it was confirmed that the court would have jurisdiction over this subject, relative to federal and state law, many are critical of the suit and its claims. First, many find fault with the assumptions about the AR-15 rifle. The suit hopes to identify the weapon as exceptional to the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which denies liability to manufacturers in the case of a criminal use). The AR-15 in reality is not what the suit describes it as: a military-style weapon with no reasonable self-defense utility. In fact, the AR-15 has been deemed an acceptable rifle by the government on several occasions. It is a semi-automatic weapon, which since the National Firearms Act of 1934, is completely legal and common. In addition, the AR-15 has been celebrated by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, founded in 1903. The AR-15, since its introduction in the 1960s, has been widely used in the federal government’s Civilian Marksmanship Program and touted as one of the most practical and reliable by CMP instructors. The lawsuit will fail to circumvent the 2005 PLCAA because ironically the government has been asserting the validity of the AR-15 as a civilian-acceptable rifle for years. In addition, the CMP has endorsed a more exceptional weapon, the M1 garand, a WWII battle rifle, called the “greatest battle implement ever devised” by General George S. Patton. Although it is rarely used today, the M1 Garand was widely popular in the 50s, 60s, and 70s as a part of the CMP. Today, the CMP still allows the use of the M1 Garand’s successor, the M14 (when rendered semi-auto only), which was widely used in the early stages of the Vietnam War before it was replaced by the M16. To compare the three weapons, the M1 Garand is the most lethal, firing a 30.06 cartridge round, while the M14 uses a slightly lighter round, the .308 cartridge. And finally, the AR-15, paling in comparison, fires a .223 cartridge (along with some other similarly sized calibers), and has never been used in any significant military conflict. The lethality argument - the notion that the AR-15 is too deadly for civilian use - is dubious, because all guns are lethal, and on the spectrum of lethality, the AR-15 is not even close to the most deadly rifle available to the public.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) clearly provides the legal basis to refute the claims of this lawsuit. It was designed to deter such accusations in the first place. There is a clause in the PLCAA which states that if the arms manufacturer negligently entrusts their dangerous product in the wrong hands, they could become liable. However, negligent entrustment could not be applied to a situation in which the weapon went from the factory to a distributor, then to a retail store, then to a law-abiding eligible citizen (the mother of Adam Lanza), who then became responsible for her son’s actions. A more plausible example of negligible entrustment would be a car dealer negligently entrusting a car to a teenager without a driving permit or license.
The PLCAA resurfaced when Bernie Sanders was asked about his position. He voted for the law in 2005 and continues to support it. When asked in the context of this particular lawsuit, He said “No, I don’t, but I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people.” The attention from the democratic race, coupled with Judge Bellis’s ruling on Friday, should bring this case into the national spotlight, adding another complex facet to the guns debate. However, this attention does not change the fact that the PLCAA completely shields the gun manufacturers from any liability and any claims of exceptions by the families are utterly false.
Although the lawsuit should not proceed based on the established laws, especially the PLCAA, it still sparks a controversial ethical argument. This case could be related to the NFL’s ongoing concussion debacle. The NFL, however, is generally at fault for withholding scientific evidence and facilitating dangerous actions while aware of the side-effects. In the case of Bushmaster, they have not done any clear wrongdoing, like in NFL case. In a similar case in terms of public interest, the tobacco industry was forced to make a “lump sum” bail settlement when state lawsuits reached an unfortunate level for their public relations. The overwhelming scientific evidence showing the terrible effects of smoking coupled with the state’s argument and statistics of irrational health care prices as a result of the smoking-related diseases crippled the industry domestically and forced them to capitulate. Although the gun manufacturing industry is not currently liable by the legislation, public opinion may force them to settle.
For a while, before the state got involved, cigarette companies were able to refute the accusations of smokers by claiming that it was their choice to smoke. In the case of Remington and Bushmaster, it is only when the AR-15 is in the hands of a criminal that it becomes a dangerous and harmful accessory, like any weapon. A recent FBI Uniform Crime study revealed that only roughly a quarter of all the 12,000 gun related firearms used a rifle of any kind. In addition, anecdotes and professional opinions have suggested that the AR-15 is one of the best self-defense options available. While it’s understandable that survivors seek to pin blame upon the manufacturer of the firearm involved in such a tragedy, it is ultimately inappropriate to hold the manufacturer criminally liable or ethically at fault.
