Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer to Proceed
motion

A wrongful death lawsuit against gun manufacturer Remington Arms Co. for producing the weapon used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting will move forward in court. A Connecticut Superior Court judge denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which claims that the gun manufacturer, distributer and shop that sold the gun are all liable for producing and selling a weapon unfit for civilian use. The suit is brought by families of the victims killed in the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that took the lives of 20 children and six adults.

The suit concerns the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle—the gun Adam Lanza used in the horrific school shooting three years ago. It claims that militaristic marketing of the gun made the weapon appealing to those looking to inflict mass casualties. The case could be a landmark one in the battle for greater gun control.

At the beginning of the year, California introduced three new gun laws aimed at increasing gun safety in the state. One law allows a person concerned about the mental state of a family member to obtain a 21-day restraining order barring the individual from owning guns. The law is inspired by the 2014 Isla Vista shooting, in which Elliot Rogers took 10 lives and injured 14. Rogers’ mother sought help from mental health professionals one month prior to the shootings, but other than a check up from police, nothing came of it.

Under the new law, police would investigate the claim and then petition the court for a 21-day restraining order. The restraining order would bar the individual from purchasing any guns or ammunition and would require them to surrender any they already own. After the 21-day period is up, the court decides whether or not to extend the order to a year.

The second new gun law is an amendment to the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995, which prohibits taking a firearm into a school zone or university campus. The law formerly exempted people with concealed carry permits, but now they too will be subject to the ban, unless given approval by school administrators.

The third law requires airsoft and BB gun manufacturers to use fluorescent or bright markings on guns to better distinguish them from lethal firearms.

“There’s quite a bit of new California legislation taking effect in 2016—gun-related and otherwise. It would be beneficial for all California residents to get familiar with some of the more significant laws that might impact them,” said Attorney Walter Clark, founder of Walter Clark Legal Group.

Our firm has been handling personal injury cases throughout the California Low Desert and High Desert communities for over 30 years. With a 95% success rate, the California personal injury attorneys at Walter Clark Legal Group will fight to hold those responsible for your loss accountable and win compensation to cover medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. If you have been injured and want to discuss your legal options, contact us today at (760) 777-7777 for a free consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer. We have offices in Indio, Rancho Mirage, Victorville, and Yucca Valley and represent clients through the entire California Low Desert and High Desert communities.

DISCLAIMER: The Walter Clark Legal Group blog is intended for general information purposes only and is not intended as legal or medical advice. References to laws are based on general legal practices and vary by location. Information reported comes from secondary news sources. We do handle these types of cases, but whether or not the individuals and/or loved ones involved in these accidents choose to be represented by a law firm is a personal choice we respect. Should you find any of the information incorrect, we welcome you to contact us with corrections.

Recent Posts
Popular Tags

Walter Clark Legal Group

Walter Clark Legal Group
N/a
Skip to content