HARTFORD, Conn. -- A judge on Friday dismissed a wrongful-death lawsuit by Newtown families against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre, citing an embattled federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.
State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the Dec. 14, 2012, school attack, in which a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle made by Remington.
The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine. Their lawyer vowed an immediate appeal of Friday's ruling.
The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, N.C.-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun-makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.
The judge made it clear that the families' claims that the gun company should be held liable for Adam Lanza's actions did not meet the narrow exceptions the federal law allows.
"Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law, nor do they come within PLCAA's definition of negligent entrustment," Bellis wrote.
"Furthermore, the plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) to bring this action within PLCAA's exception allowing lawsuits for violation of a state statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms. A plaintiff under CUTPA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship," the judge wrote.
Advocates for gun control and against gun violence have criticized the law as special protection for gunmakers. It became an issue in the presidential campaign this year when Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic nominee, criticized then-challenger Bernie Sanders for his support of the law in 2005. Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, is now backing a bill to repeal the law.
Lawyers for Remington said Congress passed the act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.
But the families' attorneys argued the lawsuit was allowed under an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others.
"While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge's decision, this is not the end of the fight," said Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families. "We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening."
Jonathan Whitcomb, an attorney for Remington Arms, declined to comment.
The company recently had been fighting to keep internal documents requested by the families from public view.
Lanza, who was 20 years old, shot his mother to death at their Newtown home before driving to the school, where he killed 26 other people. He killed himself as police arrived.
Information for this article was contributed by Dave Collins of The Associated Press and by Dave Altimari of The Hartford Courant.
A Section on 10/15/2016