Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry

Attorney Joshua Koskoff, along with the Sandy Hook families that are suing Remington Arms for providing the AR-15-type Bushmaster, held a press conference at Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport on Monday, February 22, 2016. less Attorney Joshua Koskoff, along with the Sandy Hook families that are suing Remington Arms for providing the AR-15-type Bushmaster, held a press conference at Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport on Monday, ... more Photo: Cathy Zuraw / Hearst Connecticut Media Buy photo Photo: Cathy Zuraw / Hearst Connecticut Media Image 1 of / 36 Caption Close Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry 1 / 36 Back to Gallery

BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

They called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis a landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.

“They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.

“I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.

Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.

But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.

The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.

Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.

Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”

Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday. Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.

U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.

“It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”

A timeline

In January 2015, the families of 10 victims sued the Remington Arms Company, which makes the Bushmaster; Camfour Holding LLC, the gun’s distributor; and Riverview Sales, the now-defunct East Windsor gun store where Adam Lanza’s mother Nancy legally bought the gun. Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother on the morning of December 14, 2012 with a .22 rifle before taking the Bushmaster and other weapons to the elementary school.

The lawsuit argued that Remington and the other defendants “unscrupulously marketed and promoted the assaultive qualities and military uses of AR-15s to civilian purchasers.”

On Dec. 11, 2015, Remington, Camfour and the gun store asked Judge Bellis to throw out the lawsuit, claiming immunity under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA . The PLCAA bars lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of a product that is used in a criminal action.

Congress unclear

However, in analyzing the federal law, Bellis said the PLCAA’s use of the term “may not” sue manufacturers is not a clear statement from Congress limiting the power of courts in the cases.

“The court concludes that any immunity that PLCAA may provide does not implicate this court’s subject matter jurisdiction,” Bellis said in her 18-page decision. “Accordingly, the defendants’ motions to dismiss, in which they claim that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, cannot be granted on the basis of PLCAA.”

Sachin Padya, professor of law at the University of Connecticut, said Thursday that Judge Bellis was reading the defendants’ argument not on the merits of the case but on whether she could hear it in the first place.

“The judge is saying the defendants are wrong that the federal statute strips the court of the power to hear the case,” Pandya said. “She says the law does not restrict the court’s power to hear the case.”

Pandya said the court’s decision does not stop the defendants from later seeking to strike or throw out the case on the merits.

In a secondary issue, Bellis affirmed the court’s jurisdiction.

“The question of who - consumer, competitor, business relation, and/or an additional class of persons - has a protectable interest pursuant to (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act) reflects a challenge to the plaintiffs’ legal interests, not standing, and does not affect the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims,” Bellis wrote. “Accordingly, the defendants' motions to dismiss cannot be granted on this ground."

A weapon of war

In Newtown on Thursday, Dorothy Koellmer and Connie Watkins said they hoped that eventually, gun manufacturers will be held responsible, then change how weapons are marketed to the public.

Koellmer, who was visiting family in Sandy Hook, said assault rifles should not be sold to the public.

“That’s something you use in the army or in war,” she said. “What are private people using them for?”

Watkins, who has lived in Sandy Hook since 1954 and was wearing the now familiar green Sandy Hook memorial bracelet, hopes some day the community can move on from the tragedy.

“I don’t think it will ever be over,” Watkins said. “We just hope it calms down one of these days.”

Presidential echo

Malloy, who is supporting Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, said the ruling also underscores the difference between Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the issue of gun control reform. Clinton has criticized Sanders for saying that the Newtown victims’ families should not be allowed to sue and for voting in favor of the law that gave gun manufacturers immunity from wrongful death lawsuits.

“Common sense gets around Bernie Sanders,” Malloy said.

Sanders’ campaign did not respond to a request for comment, though it has pointed out in the past that Sanders has a life-time grade of D from the National Rifle Association for his record on gun control.

Hillary Clinton praised Bellis’s decision.

“Today’s ruling in Connecticut is an important step forward for these families, who are bravely fighting to hold irresponsible gunmakers accountable for their actions.” Clinton said in a statement. “They deserve their day in court. Period.”

Gross, the Brady campaign official, noted that the court ruling coincides with President Obama’s proclamation that is National Crime Victims' Rights Week.

“I cannot think of a more fitting observance than repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and allowing these ten families and all other victims of gun violence the opportunity to seek justice for the children they'll never get to see grow up,” he said.

Staff writers Neil Vigdor and Alex Wolff contributed to this report.