Sandy Hook families CAN sue Remington for selling assault rifle used in school massacre, US Supreme Court rules

FAMILIES of the Sandy Hook school massacre victims have won a legal battle to sue Remington for selling the assault rifle used to slaughter 20 kids and six adults. 

The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the gun company, which argued it should be shielded by a law blocking crime victims from launching legal action against firearms manufacturers.

The family members of nine people slain and one survivor of the Sandy Hook massacre filed the lawsuit in 2014. 

They have argued that Remington bears some of the blame for the Sandy Hook tragedy. 

It is alleged the company had been illegally marketed the Bushmaster AR-15 gun that Lanza used — which was semi-automatic civilian version of the US military's M-16. 

It was argued that consumer protection law forbids advertising that promotes violent, criminal behaviour and yet even though these rifles have become the "weapon of choice for mass shooters", Remington's ads "continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman." 

One of them, they noted, stated, "Forces of opposition, bow down."

Attorney Josh Koskoff said the families are grateful that the court denied Remington's appeal.

He said: "We are ready to resume discovery and proceed toward trial in order to shed light on Remington's profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users at the expense of Americans' safety.”

A Remington representative could not be reached for comment.

Remington's ads continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman

Sandy Hook families

Remington was backed in the case by a number of gun rights groups and lobbying organisations.

This included the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), which is closely aligned with Republicans backing President Donald Trump. 

The NRA has dubbed the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit as "company-killing."

The rampage in December 14 in 2012 was carried out by a 20-year-old gunman named Adam Lanza, who shot his way into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and fired on first-graders and adult staff before fatally shooting himself as police closed in.

The United States has experienced a succession of mass shootings in recent decades.

The atrocities have staggered the American public — and the world.

Assault-type rifles have been a recurring feature in many of the massacres which resemble tragedies usually inflicted in warzones.

But the US Congress has not enacted new gun control laws in the wake of the slaughter unfolding across the nation, largely because of Republican opposition.

The company argued that it should be insulated from the lawsuit by a 2005 federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was aimed at blocking a wave of lawsuits damaging to the firearms industry.

The case hinges on an exception to this shield for claims in which a gun manufacturer knowingly violates the law to sell or market guns. 

Remington has argued that the Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted the exception too broadly when it decided to let the case go ahead.

Though the case does not directly implicate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the NRA told the justices in a filing that the lawsuit could put gun manufacturers out of business, making the right meaningless.

A state trial court initially threw out the claims but the Connecticut Supreme Court revived the lawsuit in March, prompting Remington's appeal.