Yesterday, the Sandy Hook families presented their dramatic oral argument about assault weapons in the Remington/Bushmaster case before the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The families are making the argument that Remington engaged in negligent entrustment by supplying the Sandy Hook shooter with a semiautomatic rifle designed for battlefield use, the AR-15. The product was marketed to civilians as a military item that provides infantry with superior firepower.
In Connecticut, negligent entrustment is defined as “supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.”
Attorney Joshua D. Koskoff argued that Remington/Bushmaster must have forseen that these dangerous rifles would make their way into the hands of violent Americans through both the (weak) primary retail market and the unregulated (private sales) secondary market for firearms in the United States.
Please take one of the following two actions:
1) Read the following article about the oral argument in the Hartford Courant:
2) Click the link below to watch the families’ oral argument by attorney Josh Koskoff. The argument is the first 30 minutes of the video:
After you take one or both of these actions, click the orange banner at the top of this page to report taking action!
This is an important legal moment in the history of the gun issue, as the Sandy Hook families are testing the limits of the noxious 2005 gun industry immunity law drafted by the NRA.
Are assault weapons creating such terror in our communities that they are becoming a public threat/nuisance? It’s a question worth asking.