Blaming the Bushmaster

Sandy Hook Families File Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer


The suit names as defendants Bushmaster Firearms International, which is owned by Remington Outdoor Co.; Camfour, a company that distributes Bushmaster products; and Riverview Gun Sales, a East Windsor, Conn., gun shop that sold the rifle to Ms. Lanza. The lawsuit claims the gunmaker, the firearms distributor, and the store that sold firearm are liable for producing and selling a weapon unfit for civilian use. “There is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons, that is no longer reasonable to entrust them to for that purpose,” Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing the families, said in an interview. “How many massacres do there have to be before that is realized?”

... The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law in 2005, shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits. The basis for the Newtown suit stems from one exception under the law, so-called negligent entrustment lawsuits. Under such actions, one party can be held liable for entrusting a product to another party who then causes harm to a third-party.

... Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an association that represents the firearms industry, said the lawsuit was without merit. “It’s exactly the kind of lawsuit the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was designed to stop,” Mr. Keane said. Mr. Keane also rejected the idea that the rifle was unfit for civilian use. “Millions of people own them and do use them every day for lawful purposes,” he said. Dennis Henigan, former director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the lawsuit would test the limits of the negligent-entrustment legal theory. “The issue in this case will be whether courts are willing to construe the doctrine of negligent entrustment so broadly as to encompass a theory of liability that is based on the sale of a particular gun to the general public instead of to a potentially particular dangerous individual,” Mr. Henigan said.
Comment: In my view without merit!  Image source


  1. Making the argument under cross examination would be highly entertaining.

    "Now, tell me how I could know that my distributor would sell to a gun shop that would sell to a person whose son was mentally ill and likely to commit violence, when even psychiatrists are often unable to predict that a person will commit violence with any accuracy, even after a long history of psychiatric care?"


  2. That's a good point, Mr. Bubba. What's even more compelling in this case is that SandyHook was not even real and more than likely no kids were even killed or shot because this was nothing but a staged event. It's silly to make arguments for lawsuits based on a staged, fake event.


Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic