Sandy Hook Parents To Sue Gun Manufacturer Bushmaster On 2nd Anniversary of Deaths

Sunday, December 14, is the second anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the shooting that took the lives of 20 children and seven adults. It’s also the day that some of the children’s parents are reportedly filing suit against the manufacturer of the AR-15 that was used to kill their kids.

Dec. 14 is both the 2nd anniversary and the deadline for filing suit.

In recent weeks, parents of thirteen of the children have opened estates in their names at probate court. At least 11 of the applications signaled the intention to file a wrongful death suit. This was a first step toward such a filing; December 14 is the legal deadline.

The Guardian reports that an official announcement of the action will be made on Monday, December 15, by attorney Michael Koskoff and Democratic lobbyist Karen Hinton.

Koskoff represented the Michael Jackson estate in its unsuccessful wrongful death suit. Hinton is known for taking on big corporations over issues like pollution of the Amazon rain forest.

The parents’ task was made much harder by a Congress that is shamefully in the pocket of the National Rifle Association. In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prohibited civil suits against manufacturers due to “the misuse” of their weapons by others.

According to News.Mic, the parents’ legal strategy will avoid the misuse argument and focus instead on a tactic used in the 60’s and 70’s to force car manufacturers to install seatbelts. The suit will allege that Bushmaster failed to incorporate appropriate safety mechanisms in the AR-15 that would have prevented Adam Lanza from firing his mother’s weapon.

These kids are not mere ‘statistical blips.’

Last year, Veronique Pozner, mother of shooting victim Noah, told the media:

I am looking at anything that can be done to prevent this from happening to another family. I don’t want his life to be a statistical blip.

Noah’s estate is party to the suit against Bushmaster, which may be only one of several. The families are also reportedly considering suits against the estate of the shooter’s mother, Nancy Lanza; the insurance company that issued her homeowner’s coverage; and the town of Newtown, CT, for providing inadequate security to the school.

It took years for activists to force car companies into making safety measures a part of their product. It may take years for this effort to succeed as well.

The consequences of inaction are horrifying. A recent analysis by Everytown For Gun Safety reports that an unconscionable 94 school shootings have occurred in the two years since the Sandy Hook massacre. Only a handful of states have been spared.

If this country is ever to arrive at the day when it can truly say, “Not One More,” it will be thanks to the courage of parents like these — people who continue on through sheer force of will for the sake of others. Parents who are determined that their children’s lives will have more meaning than becoming mere “statistical blips.”

 

Feature image from Sandy Hook Promise Facebook page

Send to Kindle
  • Destiny Phillips

    Trying to profit off their children’s (alleged) deaths for publicity… Disgusting.
    Gun ownership is LEGAL in America. It’s one of the building blocks our Nation was founded upon. Guns aren’t going anywhere.
    If they really wanted progress, they would stand for something productive, like trained, armed guards in schools. I bet “Sandy Hook” would of NEVER happened (if it actually did happen) if the school took the proper steps in protecting the children to begin with.

    • Doc Bruce

      Try reading the article nimrod. They are not “trying to profit.” You find their lawsuit “Disgusting?” I’ll tell you what is disgusting. What’s disgusting is 20 tiny little kids shot in the head; summarily executed.

      • Destiny Phillips

        I’m well aware of exactly what the article says…
        If they aren’t suing for money, explain to me why the insurance company and Nancy Lanza’s estate are also named in the suit ?

  • William Russell

    I’m a very big supporter of the 2nd amendment, however that support doesn’t go as far as refusing to have a conversation about this. I’m not a gun owner, but I like guns and I like shooting them at concentric circles drawn on sheets of paper. If I could afford it, I’m sure I would have quite a few because there are noticeable differences even between very similar guns, much in the same way there are noticeable differences between identical classes of cars from different manufacturers. Different cars perform differently in many subtle ways from how they hug the road to how the energy is fed back to the driver via the steering wheel and seats. I like the sport of marksmanship, but I’m not too big on the sport of hunting game, because there’s already plenty of meat at Albertson’s that is already dead, and I don’t see why a life which can feel fear and pain should end violently to feed me when I could just buy beef. That being said, I think that it is far too easy for firearms to be picked up and used by anyone. To abstract my argument for dramatic effect, imagine a firearm dropped into the 5th century B.C. world. It would essentially make whoever held the weapon a God by the standards of the day, and I think that sometimes we forget that firearms really do grant individuals the power of the angel of death. The power to point at someone or something, sometimes a great distance away and SNAP! end it’s life. I think that it’s too much power to make freely available to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who happens to be wielding it, because even though Tom is responsible and respects the power, Dick can sometimes be prone to jealous rages when he has been drinking, especially when it comes to female affections, and Harry is a criminal sociopath who sees nothing wrong at all in simply eliminating anything that stands between him and what he wants. 10 years ago, home biometric technology was in it’s infancy, but already there were affordable security devices to secure your home PC with, and it was as simple as just putting your thumb on the USB optical reader to log into your home PC. I can only assume that the technology has gotten even smaller and cheaper during the decade since. I don’t see any practical reason why such a device couldn’t be incorporated into the grip of a pistol or rifle such that it operates some form of safety interlock whereby the gun may only be fired while it can actively see the fingerprint(s) of it’s owner. The registered owner’s fingerprints would be recorded and stored at the time of purchase, and through a wireless link to a smartphone or other device, the owner would be able to set individual permissions for any other individuals such as family members or roommates, because having a home defense weapon only makes sense if the home can be defended while anyone is home, not just the registered owner of the defense mechanism. It’s definitely a tough subject to attack rationally, and I’m finding myself torn 3 ways as I argue. I believe it’s an essential right to defend home, family and self with lethal force if necessary. I believe that there are those among us who are simply not fit to have access to firearms, such as violent felons, who have already proven that they are capable of harming others during the commission of a crime either through overt violence, or the willful disregard for the safety of others. I believe that there are some types of mental illness which would preclude someone from owning a weapon, and for some such as in the case of the psychopath, they should never have access to weapons, while ownership status for other illnesses would be equitable to the illness in question. I believe that all mental illnesses are different, and it is highly ignorant for someone ‘sane’ to speak about one person’s illness as if it were capable of causing the same kinds of behaviors which were manifested by a different individual suffering from a different disease of the mind. Someone suffering from mild clinical depression is not the same thing as someone suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In our society we sometimes rush to categorize and generalize, and we’ve made it illegal to do so based on race, religion, sexuality, etc. for the most part, but in the case of mental illnesses, it seems like there is still plenty of room to discriminate based solely on the basis of the existence of an illness. I think that it is acceptable for a large percentage of the mentally ill to own firearms, providing that they have shown several years of ‘sanity’, that is to say no acute episodes of delusions, psychotic breaks, fugue states or other kinds of loosing touch with reality. It really is a lot to consider when you look at it through the prism of someone like me who is a firearm enthusiast, is not a violent individual, is diagnosed with at least one psychiatric condition, and agrees that something has to be done so there is Not One More.

  • James Crooke

    If I remember correctly this weapon was responsible for ZERO deaths at Sandy Hook. How do they expect to win this case.

  • hummer05

    the problem is …..sandy hook was a hoax…..a sham……America was hoodwinked….no one died All of the so called parents quit their day job and are now all gun lobbyists….I suggest all who are interested go to youtube and watch time to talk about sandy hook,

  • Destiny Phillips

    There’s nothing “retarded” about being Skeptical.

    Btw, using the word “retarded” in a derogatory manner is downright atrocious and hurtful to many.

  • hummer05

    you are the stupid one !

  • hummer05

    read )FBI report for that year…..no murders.you are the stupid one……and that school was closed long before the hoax…..and my husband is related to one of the crisis actors you fool!