>> An attorney for Remington Arms, the maker of the AR-15 assault rifle used in the deadly 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, asked a Connecticut judge on Monday to toss a lawsuit filed by family members of some victim of that attack, who contend that it was a military weapon that should never have been made available to a civilian.
I'm Scott Malone in Bridgeport. James Voight, an attorney for Remington, argued that a 2005 federal law called the Protection For Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, prohibited just this type of lawsuit. That law, he said, makes it clear that a gunmaker that sells a gun legally cannot be held liable when a legally sold product is used in an illegal fashion.
Josh Koskoff, an attorney representing the families, argued that the AR-15 was, in essence, a military weapon, one with no civilian use. And a gun he said that never should have been sold to Nancy Lanza. That was the mother of Adam Lanza, who bought the gun in 2012, and also died by it.
She was the first victim of his rampage.>> And how many more Newtowns? How many more San Bernardino's? How many more Auroras, and how many more Orlando's? And probably in six months we can add another name to the list. Until the Remingtons of the world say, you know what?
It just isn't worth it anymore.>>
e hearing came eight days after a gunman, claiming allegiance to Islamic State militants, in Orlando, shot dead 49 people in the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. The hearing comes on the same day that the US Supreme Court upheld a ban on assault weapons imposed by lawmakers in Connecticut and New York in the wake of the deadly 2012 attack.
The judge in the case now will take some time to deliberate on Remington's request and whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed, or to toss it out of court.