“Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”
That was one Remington Arms slogan for its AR-15 style Bushmaster rifle proclaimed in a marketing campaign.
The gunmaker also agreed to its rifle’s placement in violent video games, touted its assault rifle as the must-have weapon for any firefight and to “consider (it) your man card reissued.”
We’re unsure of the effect of such a marketing campaign on most adults, if any, but our guess is it could easily trigger some high-risk young men to buy them.
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to shield Remington from potential liability for that weapon’s use in the Dec. 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter that left 20 first-graders and six educators dead in Newtown, Conn.
The 20-year-old shooter used the AR-15 to fire 154 bullets in about five minutes, before killing himself when police arrived. He also murdered his mother before leaving for the school.
Justices rejected Remington’s argument that firearm manufacturers are shielded from liability in crimes committed with their products under a 2005 federal law.
That law — the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — gives gunmakers and dealers immunity from almost all lawsuits.
However, that law came with exceptions, including one for violating rules related to marketing and advertising.
And that exception, which limits liability based on how firearms are advertised, is what the nine families and one survivor of that massacre are predicating their case on.
It’s also what the Connecticut high court cited when it ruled that companies that market military-style guns to civilians as a way of killing enemies could be violating state consumer protection laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Connecticut court’s ruling, without comment from any justice.
We applaud the nation’s high court for refusing to shield Remington from potential liability in this case.
This case is far from concluded and now will move back to the state level and potentially could be in litigation for years or settled shortly.
We will understand if the parents of these children wish to settle before this case goes to trial or during one.
The outcome of this case and the threat of other lawsuits, including one from the victims of the Las Vegas massacre, may yet lead to disclosures that may yet change minds.
The lawsuit says Remington, which had annual sales of about $600 million in 2017, marketed this assault rifle to civilians as a way of killing enemies.
Gun manufacturers and dealers should have to defend themselves in court like every other American industry and business. Period.
These families and any numbers of others whose loved ones are gun victims, are entitled to their day in court, too.
