The U.S. Supreme Court set a new precedent Tuesday by allowing survivors and families of victims from the mass shooting in Sandy Hook to proceed with their lawsuit against the gun manufacturer Remington Arms.
Gun companies like Remington Arms, which sold the rifle that killed 26 people in December 2012, have argued that a 2005 federal law protects them from these lawsuits. However, a decision from a Republican-controlled Supreme Court says otherwise and is a step toward holding gun manufacturers accountable for their actions.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a particularly gruesome massacre, resulting in the death of 20 children and six school faculty members. The tragedy was pivotal in sparking conversations about gun rights and safety, leading schools across the nation to implement stricter security measures for their students.
The plaintiffs of the case argued that Remington shouldn’t be allowed to sell lethal weapons like the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle to the general public. The AR-15 was the rifle used by the Sandy Hook shooter, and it was legally owned by his mother.
The families also claimed that Remington’s advertising targeted “younger, at-risk males,” including the 20-year-old gunman. The lawsuit will likely also go after aggressive marketing strategies by the company that persuaded similar young men to buy assault weapons.
One advertisement from the company focused specifically on the AR-15’s war-like capabilities, stating, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”
Regardless of the marketing tactics used by gun manufacturers, though, military-style weapons should not be sold to the general public. By denying Remington’s appeal to block the lawsuit, the Supreme Court is sending a clear message to gun manufacturers that they can be held responsible for the deadly effects of the products they make and sell.
Gun manufacturers should not be immune from lawsuits and should not view themselves as above the law for their shady business practices, which includes their marketing strategies. After all, these companies profit from selling guns, which have taken countless lives in this country.
In addition, the lawsuit overturns a federal regulation supported by the National Rifle Association that has in the past been cited by the courts to protect gun manufacturers. Up until now, the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has been successful in shielding gun manufacturers from facing any real consequences for the crimes committed with their products.
In a day and age when decisions are too often influenced by organizations with money and power, it is refreshing to see a decision that undermines the firearms industry. Not only could the lawsuit provide relatives and survivors with justice and closure, but it could also advance the mission of gun control groups across this country.
And this lawsuit has implications beyond the gun industry — it reaffirms that if other companies have engaged in irresponsible and unethical marketing strategies, they too can and should be held accountable for their actions.
In reality, this lawsuit doesn’t set up a slippery slope, and is substantiated by the fact the rifle produced by the manufacturer resulted in one of the deadliest shootings this country has seen.
At the very least, this lawsuit should force gun manufacturers to reconsider and evaluate how they advertise their rifles — many of which have the capacity to take the lives of many.
