Sandy Hook families pull trigger on suing gunmaker

The Remington Outdoor Company is being sued by families of those killed or wounded during the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December 2012.

Ten families of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre are suing Remington Outdoor Company despite federal laws and legal precedent suggesting they are merely engaging in political theater.

All you ever needed to know about guns and gun rights – right from the WND Superstore

Adam Lanza, 20, stole his mother's legally obtained weapons on Dec. 12, 2012, before murdering her at home and 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Lanza committed suicide after the killings, which has left AR-15 rifle-maker Remington the primary target for the victims' thirst for accountability.

"We're bringing this lawsuit to save other families from having to live with the nightmare that we do every single day," Nicole Hockley, the mother of 6-year-old Sandy Hook victim Dylan Hockley, told ABC News on Monday.

TRENDING: Football team holds 'drag ball' show to let 'boys express effeminate side'

"Our families deserve that day in court," said Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing nine victims' families and a teacher who survived, CNN reported Monday. "We believe they should be accountable to their fair share of responsibility."

The family's lawsuit hinges on convincing a judge that an exception to a 2005 federal law protecting gun manufacturers from such lawsuits, "negligent entrustment," should be applied.

In short, Remington is accused of selling a weapon that it knew would be used to wreak havoc on civilian populations. Freedom Group, which represents the company, was expected to ask Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis to dismiss the lawsuit during oral arguments Monday afternoon.

A ruling in favor of the families would move the case to a discovery phase, which would increase the likelihood of a trial.

Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America's independent news network.

Legal precedent is not in the plaintiffs' favor. Former President George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in law in 2005, which gave judicial uniformity to more than 30 states with similar laws. Multiple lawsuits aimed at holding gun manufacturers accountable for crime have been dismissed since then.

Some recent legal failures linked to anti-gun lawsuits include:

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that Glock was not liable for a 1999 shooting by a white supremacist in Grenada Hills, California.
• The Illinois Supreme Court cited the 2005 law to dismiss a 2009 lawsuit against a gun manufacturer by the family of a child accidentally shot by his friend.
• Lawsuits filed in New York City against Beretta U.S.A. Corporation in 2008 were denied due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Bush's 2005 law has even worked its way into 2016 presidential campaigns in recent months. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders defended the heart of the law during an October 2015 interview with NBC's Chuck Todd.

"If you were a gun shop owner in Vermont, and you sell somebody a gun, and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don't think it's really fair to hold the [gun shop owner] responsible," Sanders said, International Business Times reported Oct. 14, 2015.

Sanders voted for the bill in 2005, but then-Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York voted against it.

"It was pretty straightforward to me that [Bush] was going to give immunity to the only industry in America," Clinton said during a Democratic Party debate Oct. 13, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. "Everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers. And we need to stand up and say enough of that."

Adam Lanza killed his mother and then 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec. 12, 2012. Ten families are trying to sue Remington Outdoor Company for the massacre Lanza committed with stolen weapons

RELATED:

Philly suit against gun makers dismissed

Gun makers shoot back

Texas lawmakers sue cities over gun suits