A Connecticut judge has allowed a lawsuit targeting Ruger over the 2021 King Soopers mass shooting to move forward — a ruling that stands in sharp contrast to the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision strengthening the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The case, Stanisic v. Ruger, centers on the Boulder, Colorado, attack in which the murderer used a Ruger AR-556 pistol equipped with a brace. Ten people were killed, including shoppers, workers, and a Boulder police officer. The shooter is already serving multiple life sentences. Now, some victims’ families are pursuing Ruger, claiming the company’s marketing contributed to the crime.
Their argument persuaded a local Connecticut Superior Court Judge W. Glenn Pierson enough to survive Ruger’s effort to have the case dismissed early. “While unquestionably broad, the immunity conferred by the PLCAA on firearms manufacturers and sellers is not absolute,” Judge Pierson wrote.
That one sentence sets the stage for a long, expensive discovery fight — one Ruger had hoped to avoid.
A Different Result Than the U.S. Supreme Court’s Mexico v. Smith & Wesson Decision
The ruling comes just months after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously threw out Mexico’s attempt to sue Smith & Wesson and other manufacturers. In that case, Justice Elena Kagan wrote plainly that the allegations “cannot satisfy the demands of the statute’s predicate exception.” She emphasized that manufacturers cannot be held responsible for “a third party’s criminal use” of a lawful product.
Click the link to read the whole article: Judge Lets Lawsuit Move Forward Despite PLCAA Protections
No comments:
Post a Comment