[TooMuchNeededtoComeToday: Get New York Today In The Mailbox .]
The Supreme Court of Connecticut caused a serious blow to the industry of firearms on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit on the transition to companies that produced and sold a semi-automatic rifle used by a militant in Massacre in the Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The ruling allows a lawsuit filed by relatives of victims to go to court, which could force the company to turn weapons into internal communications, that they fiercely fought for the preservation of privacy and disclosure ̵
The court agreed with the decision of the lower court judge to reject statements that directly contested the federal law that protects pistol companies from litigation, but found that the case could move forward based on the state law on unfair commercial practices. "The jury should decide whether the promotional schemes referred to in this case are encouraged, about the level of illegal trade, and whether their tragedy can be killed by their legs"
. a long battle between defenders and pistol lobes.
Resolution confirms that attorneys of the new strategy for victims' families are being used because they sought to find a route around the enormous defenses in the federal law protecting the company's gun
Relatives of the victims faced a long struggle, as they argued that pistol companies bear some responsibility for a terrible attack.
The lawsuit argued that the AR-15 Style, which Buschmaster used during the 2012 attack, was sold as a weapon of war, calling for violence in the battle and using slogans such as "Let's consider your redeemed person's card."
to a lawsuit, a deliberate desire to turn to troubled young people such as Adam Lanza, a 20-year-old boy who enrolled in elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first-graders, in spraying. This attack injured a nation and made Newtown, Connecticut, a small city where this happened, a common point in the wider debate about weapons violence.
The high rates caused by this incident caused a vigorous response from both sides, which only intensified after repeated episodes of the deadly massive violence that took place after the Newtown attack.
Among those who lobbied for litigation, there were groups on the prevention of weapon violence, ambulance doctors who treated patients injured by an assault rifle and a nationwide association of school supervisors. 19659004] Many human rights groups also expressed concern, including the National Infantry Association, which, in its brief statement, argued that allowing the cause to move forward would "eradicate" the legal security of pistol companies.
Another turning point in the judicial trial through the judicial system, which lasted much longer than many, including legal experts and seven who started
A lawsuit from members of the nine killed people and the teacher who was shot and survived was originally filed in 2014, and then transferred to the federal court where the judge ordered him to be returned to the state level.
hopes that the judge of the High Court of Barbara N. Belis allowed the case to go to court before she finally dismissed him. She found that the claims "directly within the limits of broad immunity" provided for by the federal law.
In 2005, Congress passed the Law on the Prohibition of the Lawful Sale of Weapons, which restricts lawsuits against sellers and manufacturers of weapons, providing nationwide immunity from guilt of one of their products used in crime. Legislators behind this event have referred to the need to remove what they call hostile and politically involved.
The law allows exemptions for sales and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and cases of so-called careless promise, in which the gun is casually given away or sold to a person, which creates a high risk of abuse.
In the lawsuit, seven companies insisted on expanding their scope of activities, including the manufacturer, Remington, which was named with the wholesaler and local retailer.
The lawsuit referred to the fact that the company was mistaken by ordering unexploited civilian weapons designed to maximize fatalities on the battlefield.
Attorneys noticed advertising with reports of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity –
"Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they looked after him. for many years, "said Joshua D. Coscoff, a lawyer representing the seven, judges during oral evidence in the case in 2017. The weapon used by Mr Lanza was legally purchased by his mother, Nancy Lance, who also killed.
Attorneys representing pistol companies argued that the demands put forward in a lawsuit were specifically such that they were inoculated against the law. They said that agreeing with family arguments would require changes to the law or ignoring of how it was applied in the past.
James B. Vogts, a lawyer at Remington, said during oral arguments that shooting "was a tragedy
" But no matter how tragic, "he added," as if we did not want these children and their teachers to were lost, and those losses did not suffer, the law must be applied impartially. " 19659028]