This editorial, which originally appeared in the Hartford Courant, has been edited for space.
The people who sell the weapon of choice for mass killers are going to have to reveal exactly how they peddle their message that wielding a weapon designed for military combat makes sense for ordinary civilians.
That’s good news for all of us. The mothers and fathers of the children slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary School, through their lawsuit against Remington Arms over the sale and marketing of AR-15 assault rifles, may succeed in bringing a sorely needed measure of accountability to the firearms industry.
The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday passed on taking up Remington’s appeal of a Connecticut Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for the Sandy Hook families to continue their suit against Remington, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster used in the slaying on Dec. 14, 2012. It was the right decision, and it sets the stage for a critical phase in the struggle against the NRA and the gun industry.
Up until now, because of a 2005 federal law, the gun industry has not been held accountable for its role in manufacturing, selling and marketing these weapons to those who would use them to kill. But the Sandy Hook families are seeking to change that. They are seeking information about Remington’s marketing strategy for the Bushmaster AR-15 and whether gun manufacturers such as Remington actively marketed assault weapons “to civilians for criminal purposes.”
Marketing strategy
Now, Remington’s secret marketing strategy could be subject to subpoena in the lawsuit in Connecticut courts as the process of discovery in the case moves forward. The decision paves the way for other states to use the same strategy, based on their own consumer protection laws.
“The M.O. of any big industry is to reveal as little as possible,” Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, said. “But in many ways the goal of this lawsuit is to shed light on those documents so the families can see how the gun used in this shooting was marketed”
As the case moves forward, the courts may succeed in doing what Congress has been unable to — stop or slow the spread of weapons that should be off the streets. Those who disagree with the ruling lean on the Second Amendment, but the AR-15 is different from other rifles used for target shooting, hunting or legitimate recreational purposes. It is capable of rapid fire and destruction on a far greater scale. Such weapons do not belong in civilian hands.
The tobacco companies settled lawsuits after the truth of how they were marketing cigarettes came to light. Purdue Pharma is being held responsible for marketing Oxycontin when it knew the drug’s dangers. Now Remington is going to have to answer for its tactics.
This is an important step toward meaningful reform of a gun industry that for too long has been able to evade responsibility for its role in some of this nation’s saddest chapters.
