Connecticut Shooting

Nearly five years ago a tragic event occurred when 20 year old Adam Lanza opened fire on on Sandy Hook Elementary, killing 20 first grade students all ages six to seven, along with 6 staff members in the Newtown Connecticut district. Before going to the school Lanza had murdered his mother, and took his own life after first responders arrived at the scene. Lanza had single handedly committed the most deadly mass shooting at a school building in U.S. history. The event opened up a large discussion on gun control in the united states, in turn many families of the victims took to court against major gun producers. In 2016 many lawsuits were dismissed, but now the families have taken the suit to the Supreme Court to receive justice for the unlawful deaths of their loved ones.


Shooting Deaths aren’t something gun producers have to worry about, the Federal Law protects them from that liability, but the families want the manufacturer to be held responsible. So now that protection is at risk since lawyers discovered that Remington (gun manufacturer), had marked an automatic assault rifle to a group of young men who they had known would be at high risk to abuse the gun uses. It was found by Sandy Hook family representatives that Remington had reached out  by comparing the “AR-15 to macho vigilantism and military-style insurrection.”, in full knowledge that a younger demographic would be appealed to with those claims. Families of the victims have said that Lanza did fit the demographic as he had expressed a desire previously to join the army. The rifle that Lanza used had been a gift from his mother for the two of them so share. Mother of one of the victims, Nicole Hockley, says “”This is a weapon that’s been designed to inflict mass casualties and, ‘you’re not a man if you don’t have it.’ That’s morally reprehensible and, from a marketing perspective, that’s just wrong and needs to stop,” and attorneys that are representing the families in the lawsuit. However, the lawsuit can only be appealed if the manufacturer is proved to have neglected the process that looks onto who is allowed to own the guns, abusing the entrustment that a producer will not sell to those who would be in suspension of using it in a harmful way.


Negligent entrustment is specially pointed out in the 2005 gun maker shield laws enacted by U.S. congress. Remington has not responded to any comments on the issue, but in court cases they have states that families claims are barred by the gun shield laws.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s