"Connecticut Judge Dismisses Newtown Lawsuit Against Gun Maker"

[branford]

85. What evidence?

Before a case can proceed to trial, a plaintiff must establish a viable claim in their complaint. As a litigation attorney, I have successfully moved to dismiss many a meritless lawsuit.

The facts and details of the Sandy Hook shooting are well known, including the fact that the rifle was fully compliant with Connecticut's assault weapons ban, it did not malfunction, it was lawfully purchased by Lanza's mother who easily passed all federal and state requirements to own a firearm, and Adam stole the rifle after killing his own mother. It is also a fact that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle platform in the USA, owned by millions of Americans and used without criminality, accident or malfunction many millions of times every year for entirely lawful purposes including hunting, sport and self-defense. Lastly, ALL rifles account for a tiny proportion of guns used in crime.

If you actually read the complaint, you'll quickly realize that Plaintiff's allegations amount to little more than claims that any weapon with a military pedigree (i.e., virtually every firearm every made) is too dangerous for civilian ownership. Plaintiffs are essentially demanding that the courts ban all semiautomatic rifles, and establish a foundation to ban all other guns, in contravention of the Bill of Rights and many decades of established products liability jurisprudence (particularly with respect to proximate cause issue and criminal misuse of an item by third-parties), as well as totally circumvent the democratic legislative process where such decisions are properly made.

Lastly, Plaintiffs' theories of liability are nothing new or novel and have been tested with far more advantageous than those of Sandy Hook. Dead children, while certainly very tragic and useful for emotive appeals to legislators, do not lower the standards which must be met in court. Don't forget that there were hundreds of lawsuits before the passage of the PCLAA, and the lack of merit and success of such litigation was the primary motivation for the limited immunity provided now by the statute.