{"id":158,"date":"2019-03-14T21:43:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-14T21:43:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2019\/03\/14\/connecticut-supreme-court-rules\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:29:58","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:29:58","slug":"connecticut-supreme-court-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=158","title":{"rendered":"Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Remington Can Be Sued Regardless Of PLCAA"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:6394,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2016\\\/10\\\/lawsuit-in-connecticut-against.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20241208210428\\\/https:\\\/\\\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\\\/2016\\\/10\\\/lawsuit-in-connecticut-against.html&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-17 14:43:36&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-17 14:43:36&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:6395,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/legalinsurrection.com\\\/2019\\\/03\\\/connecticut-supreme-court-permits-sandy-hook-victims-to-sue-remington\\\/#more-276810&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:6396,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.jud.ct.gov\\\/\\\/external\\\/supapp\\\/Cases\\\/AROcr\\\/CR331\\\/331CR865.pdf&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20260206024623\\\/https:\\\/\\\/www.jud.ct.gov\\\/external\\\/supapp\\\/Cases\\\/AROcr\\\/CR331\\\/331CR865.pdf&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-17 14:43:53&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:503}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-17 14:43:53&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:503},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:6397,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.jud.ct.gov\\\/\\\/external\\\/supapp\\\/justice6.html&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:6398,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.jud.ct.gov\\\/\\\/external\\\/supapp\\\/Cases\\\/AROcr\\\/CR331\\\/331CR865E.pdf&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:6399,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.jud.ct.gov\\\/\\\/external\\\/supapp\\\/justiceRobinson.htm&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20250702184105\\\/https:\\\/\\\/www.jud.ct.gov\\\/external\\\/supapp\\\/justiceRobinson.htm&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-17 14:44:12&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:503}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-17 14:44:12&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:503},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\nThe Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled today that Remington can be sued by families of Newtown victims. This overturns a <a href=\"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com\/2016\/10\/lawsuit-in-connecticut-against.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2016 Connecticut Superior Court ruling<\/a> that said that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precluded such a lawsuit. The 4-3 decision by the state supreme court held that <a href=\"https:\/\/legalinsurrection.com\/2019\/03\/connecticut-supreme-court-permits-sandy-hook-victims-to-sue-remington\/#more-276810\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">while most claims were properly dismissed Bushmaster&#8217;s marketing of the AR-15 amounted to violations of the state&#8217;s unfair trade practice<\/a>s.<\/p>\n<p>The majority <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jud.ct.gov\/\/external\/supapp\/Cases\/AROcr\/CR331\/331CR865.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">opinion <\/a>&nbsp;written by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jud.ct.gov\/\/external\/supapp\/justice6.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Justice Richard Palmer<\/a> concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial<br \/>\ncourt properly determined that, although most of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\u2019 claims should have been dismissed, PLCAA<br \/>\ndoes not bar the plaintiffs\u2019 wrongful marketing claims<br \/>\nand that, at least to the extent that it prohibits the<br \/>\nunethical advertising of dangerous products for illegal<br \/>\npurposes, CUTPA qualifies as a predicate statute. Specifically, if the defendants did indeed seek to expand the<br \/>\nmarket for their assault weapons through advertising<br \/>\ncampaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting,<br \/>\ncollecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive<br \/>\nassaults against their perceived enemies, then we are<br \/>\naware of nothing in the text or legislative history of<br \/>\nPLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the<br \/>\ndefendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.<\/i><br \/>\n<i><br \/><\/i><br \/>\n<i>The judgment is reversed with respect to the trial<br \/>\ncourt\u2019s ruling that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring<br \/>\na CUTPA claim and its conclusion that the plaintiffs\u2019<br \/>\nwrongful death claims predicated on the theory that<br \/>\nany sale of military style assault weapons to the civilian<br \/>\nmarket represents an unfair trade practice were not<br \/>\nbarred under the applicable statute of limitations, and<br \/>\nthe case is remanded for further proceedings according<br \/>\nto law; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;The majority also concluded that it was doubtful that the most popular rifle and carbines sold in the US over the last few years was even protected by the Second Amendment. <a href=\"https:\/\/legalinsurrection.com\/2019\/03\/connecticut-supreme-court-permits-sandy-hook-victims-to-sue-remington\/#more-276810\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">As Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes<\/a>, the Connecticut Supreme Court seems to be daring the US Supreme Court to take this case.<\/p>\n<p>Jacobson goes on to say:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>The question is not only whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case, but when that will happen \u2014 now, or only after a final judgment is rendered in the CT courts. That\u2019s key, because if a gun manufacturer otherwise protected by PLCAA has to go through discovery and trial, that defeats the purpose of PLCAA.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jud.ct.gov\/\/external\/supapp\/Cases\/AROcr\/CR331\/331CR865E.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">dissent <\/a>&nbsp;written by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jud.ct.gov\/\/external\/supapp\/justiceRobinson.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Chief Justice Richard Robinson<\/a> examined the PLCAA, Congressional intent, and case law and concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>In summary, whether this court agrees with Congress<br \/>\nor not, in adopting the arms act, Congress adopted<br \/>\nfindings and statements of purpose in 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 7901;<br \/>\nsee footnote 1 of this dissenting opinion; which made<br \/>\nvery clear its intent to absolve defendants like these\u2014<br \/>\ngun manufacturers and distributors\u2014from liability for<br \/>\ncriminal use of firearms by third parties except in the<br \/>\nmost limited and narrow circumstances and, particularly, to shield them from novel or vague standards of<br \/>\nliability.22 This court is obligated, therefore, to construe<br \/>\nthe predicate exception to the arms act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 7903<br \/>\n(5) (A) (iii), narrowly in light of that clear expression<br \/>\nof congressional intent.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Chief Justice Robinson continues:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>Consequently, I strongly disagree with the<br \/>\nmajority\u2019s conclusion that CUTPA, which is a broadly<br \/>\ndrafted state unfair trade practices statute applicable<br \/>\nto all commercial entities in a variety of factual circumstances, comes within that exception.24 Instead, I would<br \/>\nconclude that, because CUTPA, both in its statutory<br \/>\ntext and in its implementation under the cigarette rule,<br \/>\nreaches a range of commercial conduct that far exceeds<br \/>\nthe manufacture, marketing, and sale of firearms, it is<br \/>\nnot by itself a predicate statute. That state unfair trade<br \/>\npractices statutes had not been used to hold firearms<br \/>\nmanufacturers civilly liable to crime victims25 renders<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs\u2019 CUTPA claims particularly novel in the<br \/>\ncontemplation of Congress; see 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 7901 (a) (7)<br \/>\n(2012); and, thus, subject to preclusion under the arms<br \/>\nact.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I most certainly hope that Remington appeals this decision to the US Supreme Court as this ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court certainly serves to undercut the supremacy of Federal law. More importantly, I hope the US Supreme Court takes this case sooner than later.<\/p>\n<p>As an aside, Justice Palmer who wrote the majority opinion in this case served as the US Attorney for Connecticut from 1991 to 1993 and was appointed by President George H. W. Bush. So much for assuming Republicans respect the rule of law, the Constitution, or the supremacy of Federal law on what is rightfully a Federal issue. I guess Justice Palmer didn&#8217;t want to irritate his friends down at the country club by ruling in favor of those icky gun companies.<\/p>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled today that Remington can be sued by families of Newtown victims. This overturns&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":1,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[260,383,262],"class_list":["post-158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-connecticut-supreme-court","tag-protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act","tag-soto-et-al-v-bushmaster-et-al"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=158"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11728,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158\/revisions\/11728"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}