Skip to main content

News Tip: Legal Expert Available to Comment on SUPCO Remington Lawsuit

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied certiorari in the case arising from the Sandy Hook massacre -- Remington v. Soto. The petition by the gun manufacturer raised a question about whether the federal law immunizing gun manufacturers in most situations, the Protection for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, applied to these facts. 

Quotes:
"The Supreme Court’s decision to leave intact the Connecticut ruling allowing Sandy Hook victims to move forward in their lawsuit against Remington is noteworthy,” says Jake Charles, lecturing fellow and executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law.

“The victims claim that Remington’s marketing practices violated state law and encouraged the shooter to select the weapon he did when perpetrating the attack. The Supreme Court has not weighed in on the scope of the 2005 federal law that immunizes gunmakers from most liability for third-party acts, and its refusal to do so here allows the Sandy Hook victims to proceed on a theory that may open a door for other mass shooting victims to find a way around the immunity law.

“It is also noteworthy that none of the justices issued dissents from the denial to hear the case, which some of them have done in other gun-related cases in recent years.” 

Bio: 
Jacob D. Charles, lecturing fellow and executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law https://web.law.duke.edu/firearms/, writes and teaches on the Second Amendment and firearms law. 

He can discuss legal issues surrounding gun laws and politics; Second Amendment jurisprudence; and questions surrounding affirmative litigation against the firearms industry. 
https://law.duke.edu/fac/charlesj/

For additional comment, contact Jake Charles at:
email jacob.charles@law.duke.edu 

---
Media Contact:
Jeannie Naujeck
(615) 414-1028; jeannie.naujeck@duke.edu