Connecticut Judge: Yes You Can (Break Federal Law if it’s to Sue Lawful Arms Manufacturer)
Tonight, the anti-gunners are gonna party like it’s 2004.
If you just got a flashback to the presidency of George W. Bush, don’t worry: It’s not your music-festival days come back to haunt you, it’s still 2019, and the anti-gunners just decided to try to use the courts to bankrupt gun manufacturers again. The Connecticut Supreme Court has just ruled that a group of families who lost loved ones at Sandy Hook are entitled to sue Bushmaster because of the actions of one depraved man. In what may well be the dumbest #ThrowbackThursday since the days before hashtags, the anti-gunners have decided to revisit a strategy that they last tried in 2004–nuisance lawsuits based on trying to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the criminal behavior of an individual.
The whole thing is like a sundae made of pure, 99/44 100% Stupid. Let’s get our spoons out and dig in, shall we?
1. The Scoops of Ice-Cold French Vanilla Duhhh
This one’s easy. Lawsuits against a company for manufacturing a non-defective product that was used illegally by a criminal aren’t just logically barren; they’re dangerous. If it’s ok to sue Bushmaster (or, more precisely, The Freedom Group–which is a consortium that owns Marlin, Remington, and Bushmaster among others) for manufacturing a gun that was used in a crime, then where does it stop? I was behind an old lady in a Prius who mowed down a gate a couple of weeks ago; does the homeowner have a lawsuit against Toyota?
2. The Fluffy Piles of Whipped Derrrrp
The thing is, this has been tried before: From the late 1990s through 2005, anti-gunners filed dozens of lawsuits against every gun manufacturer they could serve papers to. It was a prime strategy in the Brady Campaign’s playbook, in fact. There was only one problem: Each and every suit, no matter what court heard them, failed. That’s right: Despite having financial backing that would make the NRA weep with envy, the best lawyers that money could buy, and willing accomplices in the mainstream media who described this strategy as “innovative” and “ingenious,” they lost every. single. suit. That’s actually kind of remarkable; usually one can count on at least a couple of activist judges to try legislating from the bench, but no.
Thing is, winning wasn’t the point. The lawsuits were levied in order to bankrupt the manufacturers with legal fees. Essentially, they were using the U.S.’ broad and permissive tort laws to try to harass these lawful businesses into shuttering. Why didn’t it work? Well…
3. Multicolored Jimmies of Fail
It’s called the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act (PLCAA), and it was passed in 2005 and signed into law by then-President Bush. Here’s the original NYT article detailing the passage of PLCAA. (Do note the wailing and gnashing of teeth.) The PLCAA essentially forbids these nuisance suits, while at the same time allowing for suits based on defective merchandise or actual illegal activity by the manufacturer. That’s why when it came out that certain Remington firearms were capable of firing without a trigger press by the user, a class-action lawsuit was allowed to go forth. So why does the Connecticut Supreme Court think that PLCAA, a federal law, somehow doesn’t protect Freedom Group from this particular suit?
4. The Spoon That Makes Everyone Fat
Well, that’s because, according to the court, “the lawsuit could proceed based on a state law protecting consumers against fraudulent marketing.” Furthermore, that Bushmaster/Freedom Group’s marketing was based on the military appeal of the Bushmaster AR-15. Are you scratching your head, wondering how marketing a gun that looks militaristic as…being a cool thing to own because it looks kinda militaristic…is fraudulent? Or if they think Bushmaster’s advertising contained a super secret code message that enjoined a waste of carbon like the Newtown shooter to kill innocent people? Of course you are, because it makes no sense.
There’s a saying among lawyers: “If the law’s on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither are on your side, pound on the table.” In this case, the law’s not on their side, the facts aren’t on their side, and the Connecticut state supreme court is probably going to be told to go pound sand by the Supreme Court when this case gets to them.
And if not? That would be a blow to gun rights in America, but on the upside I’d be clear to get one hell of a payday from Baskin-Robbins for making delicious ice cream, and Carhartt for not making XXXXXXXL pants.
Editor’s note: If you liked this article, why not subscribe to our newsletter? You can’t regret something you never tried!
Reader Favorites
Firearms reference desk
Plain-English references worth bookmarking — the gear terms behind every review, plus NFA and carry law.
| Term | Category |
|---|---|
| Striker-fired | Action |
| MOA | Optics |
| Twist rate | Ballistics |
30 gun, ammo and optics terms explained in plain English.
Open the glossary → Network| 2026 at a glance | |
|---|---|
| NFA tax stamp | $0 |
| Permitless carry | 29 states |
| Suppressors legal | 42 states |
50+ NFA, carry and gun-law terms, from Freedom's Lodge.
View full chart →
Why is anyone surprised at this? Agendas are for the right thinking, laws are for the Deplorables. Get used to it. The Hill-n-Bill traveling grifter show has demonstrated this over thirty years.
I DON’T BELIEVE I HAVE EVER SEEN STUPIDITY AT THIS LEVEL! I NEVER THOUGHT THE DEMOCRATS WOULD STOOP THIS LOW. THIS RULING HAS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGIC WHATSOEVER. I GUESS THAT FAMILIES WHO HAVE LODT LOVED ONES BY MEANS OF A DRINK DRIVER WILL NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE THE AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER!!! THE DOMOCRATS HAVE BECOME AN ATROCITY TO THIS COUNTRY!! THIS LAWSUIT IS POINTLESS AND WITHOUT MERIT. SHAME ON THE DEMOCRATS!!
The state of Connecticut has a very large number of gun manufacturers and the state is dependent on the jobs and revenue those companies produce. The Democrats who run that state are bound and determined to put those people out of work, kill the Golden Goose, and drive those companies out of the state. all in the name of political correctness. It’s just a matter of time before they turn on the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies for the same reasons. By the time the Democrats finish, no one in Connecticut will have a job there and the state will be bankrupt.
To put the blame for the actions of a private deranged person on the lawful manufacturer of a product is ridiculous. The only way a manufacturer would hold any responsibility would be if the product was defective, and caused injury through it’s use to the user. Otherwise how on God’s earth is a manufacturer able to control the use of their product, any product, from misuse. That kind of expectation is insane. Once again the dems are looking for anything to limit or remove our Second Amendment rights. This is the lowest and most stupid way of going about it. Did any of them bother to check the FBI’s list of murder weapons for the year. Hammers (assault hammers) killed more people than firearms. I am so tied of this constant defecate from these people.
And now, the NRA is being attacked by the governor of New York who said he will engage all the state agencies against any company which does business with the NRA.
I agree with the logic you guys are applying and have says the same thing in other sites. Remember though, they are claiming the gun manufacturers advertise how good these weapons are at killing. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a manufacturer say that, but that’s their reason for the lawsuit this time. So, similarly, a sports car manufacturer that advertises how fast their car goes from 0-60 could be sued if somebody speeds and kills somebody.
If the firearms industry would grow a set and pull a Paul Hornady, states like Connecticut would get the point. Personally I believe that the state governments of California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, plus Washington DC and Chicago are suffering from mental defect or disease and by law should not be permitted to purchase any firearms related materials. After all its federal law. 2 can play the same game. However the entire industry will have to do it to have any effect.
So now we can sue the people that make and sell alcoholic beverages because they fail to make a product that is safe for consumers to drink and drive without becoming intoxicated, and killing people. Then we can sue the manufactures of semi trucks because they fail to make their trucks safe enough that they can not smash into a automobile on the road. How many cars have to be crushed between trucks on the highway before something is do to correct these issues.
I like the idea of suing judges and law enforcement officials and lets not forget about the politicians they’re the biggest cause of our problems.
I didn’t see the victims of 9/11 suing Boeing Aircraft for the attacks. Maybe if after the Ct. lawsuit fails, could Remington sue the families to recover the costs of defending the nuisance lawsuit they filed at the behest of their stupid politicians? I wonder if the financially broke state of Ct. will bail the families out?…I doubt it!….
Your suggestion that not only should plaintiffs be held liable for the costs of s such nuisance lawfare lawsuits but so should the courts that allow them is well taken. In addition to actual damages, the RICO statutes should apply, We should bankrupt the courts that allow such lawfare.
Keep in mind that CT was the State where property rights ended under the Kelo Decision.
Can we sue car companies for all the loved ones lost when someone intentionally uses a car as a weapon
Maybe it is the”c” why doesn’t Connecticut and California join up and drift out to sea
The advertisements by the gun company are known as “Puffery” in advertising terms. It is on children’s toy boxes showing the toy in some dynamic action all by itself, it is in military enlistment ads, it is in family vacation ads, financial ads, car ads etc. Puffery is a form of embellished item advertising to sell all products, Nobody wants a boring, mundane product. The plaintiffs will lose, but the chicken scat Connecticut judges skirted their responsibility.
Connecticut is like a communist state. They are gun grabbers. With the likes of Chris the idiot Murphy and Dick Blowsthemall and his stolen valor. They have been pushing stupid gun laws in that state since Sandyhook happened in the first place. I remember the day that it happened and I also remember the first news reports that were shown from Sandyhook elementary school one of the visions that if I remember correctly was the one where they showed the gunman‘s car with the trunk open and the AR 15 in the trunk. I’m not a law-enforcement officer but I know that if that particular weapon was used in the killing of 26 people it would not be resting in the back of the perpetrators vehicle. I believe that This is just a liberal push by the liberal gun grabbers in the super liberal state of Connecticut.
By the Connecticut state Supreme Court allowing these families to go after The manufacturer of the tool then the state better start allowing lawsuits to go after other manufacturers for other frivolous lawsuit like. Utensil manufacturers for making it easier to eat and contribute to people getting fat. For car manufacturers for allowing people to get behind the wheel and drive drunk. Fast food restaurants again for making people fat, also contributing to high blood pressure. To candy manufacturers for causing diabetic reactions. The list could go on and on.
Connecticut has way too many lawyers, way too many liberals and not enough common sense!
It Is the second smallest state in the union, with the second highest tax rate. Tax and spend,spend,spend then tax some more.
I was born and raised there, I also raised my family there, But the best thing I ever did was sell my house and get the hell out of that state!
The secret word for the anti-gunners is: BANKRUPT.
This tactic is being applied at many levels, if you
can’t circumvent a law, keep at it until you bankrupt them,
then go for the final lawsuit and win by default.?
Unfortunately, that’s cutting your nose off to spite your face logic. I get what your point is, but that isn’t the way to level the field.
This may open the door to sue judges. So when a judge turns loose a criminial and the criminial goes right back out and causes harm. Looks like it is the judges fault since they failed to protect the public. Any more it seems like we have country out of control with idiots at the helm.
I think suing judges is a fantastic idea. Too many people have been hurt or killed by liberal, weak judges that let criminals roam the streets.
Nice idea but it won’t work. Judges and prosecutors enjoy almost total immunity. Just ask the Baltimore officers that tried to sue Mosby for malicious prosecution. Tossed on summery judgement before it ever got close to a court room. The only way to get a judge off the bench is to catch them doing something illegal and he’ll even then they may not get booted.
Fraudulent marketing, eh? I’m a gonna sue the companies that make my jeans ’cause they said they would make me look cool and attractive to women and it just ain’t working that way…. And that’s just the start.
If Connecticut does not want guns in it’s state, then I say all gun related business and industry leave the state. Go as far as refuse to even sale guns to the state government. Make it a completely gun business free zone.
That’s what Weather by gid.