View Single Post
Old November 14, 2019, 10:43 AM   #55
Aguila Blanca
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 13,630
I think it's going to be an interesting case. Someone has already pointed out that the shooter murdered his mother, ostensibly to gain access to/possession of the Bushmaster. The reports at the time of the incident seemed to suggest, however, that the mother purchased the Bushmaster because that was what he darling son wanted, and that darling son had ready access to the gun safe.

My fuzzy understanding is that the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to go forward because of an exception in the PLCAA that refers to breaking a state law, and Connecticut apparently has a state law that in some way addresses the way firearms are advertised. The plaintiffs' argument is that Remington/Bushmaster's advertising violated that Connecticut law. The lawsuit was originally dismissed at the lower court level, and it was reinstated and upheld on appeal because of this particular point.

Consequently, I foresee the possibility that the defense will try to stress the point that the shooter didn't own the gun, and that he stole it in oder to arm himself for the shooting. I expect the plaintiffs to argue that, despite the fact that the mother was the purchaser on paper, she bought it because that was what her son wanted and that therefore the advertising was aimed at the son and was in violation of the law.

Stay tuned. :Popcorn:
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
1911 Certified Armorer
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Page generated in 0.02827 seconds with 8 queries