Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey

The lawsuit mounted a challenge to the immunity Congress granted gun companies to shield them from litigation when their weapons are used in a crime. The ruling allows the case, brought by victims’ families, to maneuver around the federal shield, creating a potential opening to bring claims to trial and hold the companies, including Remington, which made the rifle, liable for the attack.

The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby. And it stands to have wider ramifications, experts said, by charting a possible legal road map for victims’ relatives and survivors from other mass shootings who want to sue gun companies.

In the lawsuit, the families seized upon the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack, which invoked the violence of combat and used slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Lawyers for the families argued those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first-graders, in a spray of gunfire.

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

“I am thrilled and tremendously grateful,” said Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan was killed in his first-grade classroom. “No one has blanket immunity. There are consequences.”

Lawyers representing the gun companies argued the claims raised in the lawsuit were specifically the kind that federal law inoculated them against. In oral arguments, lawyers for the companies argued the weapons were marketed as being used for home defense and target practice, and not to commit violence.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html" id="697981e8-56e9-3a6c-a276-642d28c77f55">The New York Times</a>.

Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semi-automatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The lawsuit mounted a direct challenge to the immunity that Congress granted gun companies to shield them from litigation when their weapons are used in a crime. The ruling allows the case, brought by victims’ families, to maneuver around the federal shield, creating a potential opening to bring claims to trial and hold the companies, including Remington, which made the rifle, liable for the attack.

Lawyers for the families argued that those messages reflected a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first-graders, in a spray of gunfire. The attack traumatized the nation and made Newtown, Connecticut, the small town where it happened, a rallying point in the broader debate over gun violence.

In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

In the majority opinion, the justices wrote that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

The families hailed the ruling as a victory. “I am thrilled and tremendously grateful,” said Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan was killed in his first-grade classroom. “No one has blanket immunity. There are consequences. We want our day in court to see why they do this this way, and what needs to change.”

Beyond the lawsuit against the gun companies, victims’ families have also had successes recently in lawsuits against Alex Jones, the far-right provocateur, who spread bogus claims about the shooting, including that the families were actors involved in a wider plot to confiscate firearms.

The families sought legal action after they received death threats and were targeted for harassment.

As for the decision issued Thursday, lawyers for Remington, as well as other gun companies named in the suit, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope'’ of the federal protections, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing the firearm industry, said in a statement.

The families faced long odds as they pursued a novel strategy to find a route around the federal protections and will confront major hurdles as the case proceeds. Their hope was to bring the case to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications that they have fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing and possibly damaging glimpse into how the industry operates.

Nora Freeman Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford University and an author of an amicus brief signed by law professors in the case, said the ruling showed that the federal protections were “not impenetrable.”

“This is not the end,” she said, adding, “Any path for plaintiffs will be long and strewn with obstacles. But this opinion suggests there may well be a road, which before was unclear.”

The high stakes posed by the case stirred a vigorous response from both sides that only intensified after recurring episodes of deadly mass violence that followed the Newtown attack.

Among those who lobbied in support of the lawsuit were gun violence prevention groups, emergency doctors who have treated patients wounded by assault rifle fire and a statewide association of school superintendents. Many gun-rights groups also raised concerns, including the National Rifle Association, which contended in its brief that allowing the case to move ahead stood to “eviscerate” the gun companies’ legal protections.

The ruling comes as yet another twist in the lawsuit’s circuitous path through the court system, one that continued far longer than many, including legal experts and the families, had initially expected. “This decision was a long time in coming, but it was more than worth the wait,” said Joshua D. Koskoff, a lawyer for the families.

“These families were not going to go away,” he added, “no matter how long it took.”

The ruling had been delayed after Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gun makers, filed for bankruptcy last year as its sales declined and debts mounted.

The lawsuit, brought by family members of nine people who were killed and a teacher who was shot and survived, was originally filed in 2014, then moved to federal court, where a judge ordered that it be returned to the state level.

The families were given a glimmer of hope when a state Superior Court judge, Barbara N. Bellis, permitted the case to approach a trial before she ultimately dismissed it. She found that the claims fell “squarely within the broad immunity” provided by federal law.

In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which restricts lawsuits against gun sellers and makers by granting industrywide immunity from blame when one of their products is used in a crime. Lawmakers behind the measure cited a need to foil what they described as predatory and politically driven litigation.

The law does allow exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it. The families pushed to broaden the scope to include the manufacturer, Remington, which was named in the suit, along with a wholesaler and a local retailer.

The lawsuit said that the companies were wrong to entrust an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield. Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.

“Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, told the panel of judges during oral arguments in the case in 2017. The weapon used by Lanza had been legally purchased by his mother, Nancy Lanza, whom he also killed.

Lawyers representing the gun companies argued that the claims raised in the lawsuit were specifically the kind that federal law inoculated them against. In oral arguments, lawyers for the companies argued that the weapons were marketed as being used for home defense and target practice, and not to commit violence.

They said that agreeing with the families’ arguments would require amending the law or ignoring how it had been applied in the past.

James B. Vogts, a lawyer for Remington, said in court that the shooting “was a tragedy that cannot be forgotten.”

“But no matter how tragic,” he added, “no matter how much we wish those children and their teachers were not lost and those damages not suffered, the law needs to be applied dispassionately.”

The ruling allows the lawsuit brought by victims’ relatives to potentially go to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications that they have fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing — and possibly damaging — glimpse into how the industry operates.

The court agreed with the lower court judge’s decision to dismiss claims that directly challenged the federal law shielding the gun companies from litigation but found the case can move forward based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

Justices wrote in the majority opinion that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby.

The ruling validates the novel strategy lawyers for the victims’ families used as they sought to find a route around the vast protections in federal law that guard gun companies from litigation when their products are used to commit a crime.

The victims’ relatives had faced long odds as they argued that the gun companies bore some responsibility for the horrific attack.

The lawsuit argued that the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack had been marketed as a weapon of war, invoking the violence of combat and using slogans like “Consider your man card reissued.”

Such messages reflected, according to the lawsuit, a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first-graders, in a spray of gunfire. The attack traumatized the nation and made Newtown, Connecticut, the small town where it happened, a rallying point in the broader debate over gun violence.

Among those who lobbied in support of the lawsuit were gun violence prevention groups, emergency doctors who treated patients wounded by assault rifle fire and a statewide association of school superintendents.

Many gun-rights groups also raised their concerns, including the National Rifle Association, which contended in its brief that allowing the case to move ahead stood to “eviscerate” the gun companies’ legal protections.

The ruling comes as yet another twist in the lawsuit’s circuitous path through the court system, one that continued far longer than many, including legal experts and the families, had initially expected.

The ruling had been delayed after Remington, the manufacturer and one of the nation’s oldest gun makers, filed for bankruptcy last year as its sales declined and debts mounted.

The law does allow exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it.

In the lawsuit, the families pushed to broaden the scope to include the manufacturer, Remington, which was named along with a wholesaler and a local retailer in the suit.

The lawsuit said that the companies were wrong to entrust an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield.

Lawyers pointed out advertising — with messages of combat dominance and hyper-masculinity — that resonated with disturbed young men who could be induced to use the weapon to commit violence.

“Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,” Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, told the panel of judges during oral arguments in the case in 2017.

The weapon used by Lanza had been legally purchased by his mother, Nancy Lanza, whom he also killed.

Lawyers representing the gun companies argued that the claims raised in the lawsuit were specifically the kind that law inoculated them against. They said that agreeing with the families’ arguments would require amending the law or ignoring how it had been applied in the past.

James B. Vogts, a lawyer for Remington, said during oral arguments that the shooting “was a tragedy that cannot be forgotten.”

Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit to move forward against the companies that manufactured and sold the semi-automatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The ruling allows the lawsuit brought by victims’ relatives to go to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications that they have fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing — and possibly damaging — glimpse into how the industry operates.

In the lawsuit, the families pushed to broaden the scope to include Remington, which was named along with a wholesaler and a local retailer in the suit.

The ruling allows the lawsuit brought by victims’ relatives to go to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications they fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing glimpse into how the industry operates.

The ruling validates the strategy lawyers for the victims’ families used as they sought to find a route around the protections in federal law that guard gun companies from litigation when their products are used to commit a crime.

Such messages reflected, according to the lawsuit, a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first-graders, in a spray of gunfire.

Lawyers representing the gun companies argued the claims raised in the lawsuit were specifically the kind that law inoculated them against. They said agreeing with the families’ arguments would require amending the law or ignoring how it had been applied in the past.

“I incessantly have nothing other than scorn for humanity,” he wrote in an online message to another gamer.

In December 2012, 20-year old Adam Lanza acted out on his predilection for violence, anger and isolation by walking into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with an assault rifle and killing 26 people, including 20 first graders, in an attack that horrified the nation.

Details about the gunman in the years leading up to the massacre emerged in a trove of documents, which were obtained by The Hartford Courant after a five-year court battle with the state. The documents served as the basis of stories they published this week about Lanza, who shot and killed himself in the attack.

The excerpts published by The Courant illustrated how the gunman grew increasingly isolated and his obsessive behavior intensified. But they also showed how his behavior might not have been enough of a warning sign to his mother and others of the violence he was capable of committing.

Some criticized the newspaper for publicizing the documents, claiming that doing so may provide an example for others. But The Courant defended its decision in an editorial published Sunday.

“The state hid the writings, reports and records not just from the press, but from researchers, experts and clinicians who could have learned more about what early warning signs might have been missed; what educators and clinicians need to pay attention to when dealing with angry, lonely children; what prevention strategies might be helpful in preventing another such tragedy from ever happening again,” the editorial read.

The trove, which was collected by the Connecticut State Police during its investigation, covers about 15 years of his life, including personal writings, school work and education and psychiatric records. It includes photographs that show how he evolved from a small boy posing with a bat in his Little League Baseball card to a pale and emaciated young man who had walled himself off from outsiders, and even his family, and spent his days playing combat video games.

The documents, which fleshed out the findings of multiple official investigative reports over the years, laid bare a life punctuated by issues that led him to separate from his peers. In preschool, developmental speech delays made it difficult for him to communicate with classmates, and later, he developed intense germophobia, an aversion to human contact and sensitivity to light and sounds.

The response to The Courant’s coverage has touched on an enduring struggle to report on recurring episodes of mass violence as part of the public’s right to know what happened, which the newspaper said motivated its reporting, and avoiding raising the profile of perpetrators.

In October, the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of releasing the documents, which had been collected from the Lanza’s home.

The newspaper has argued that its reporting helped bolster the public’s understanding of the circumstances precipitating the attack. “The information had value to those who wanted to make sure no parent ever had to live through the kind of horror the Sandy Hook families were forced to endure,” The Courant said in the editorial.

Still, as the Sandy Hook shooting became but one in a drumbeat of deadly mass shootings, a mounting effort sought to discourage the news media from spreading a shooter’s name and photograph, fearing that it could glorify their actions and spur a so-called contagion effect.

“Don’t turn these people into celebrities,” said Adam Lankford, a criminologist at the University of Alabama who studies mass shootings. Photos, videos and social media posts by a gunman, he said, “can inspire celebrity worship.”

“We’re not at a point where people are naive to the risks anymore,” Lankford said.

Some relatives of victims have criticized The Courant’s coverage, noting the decision to publish the stories just before the sixth anniversary of the massacre Friday.

“You guys absolutely suck for releasing this now,” Nelba Márquez-Greene, whose 6-year-old daughter, Ana Grace, was killed in the attack, wrote on Twitter.

In a separate statement, Márquez-Greene acknowledged that details of the shooting “can help inform response and possibly even help to prevent tragedy in the future.” Yet, she added, “The timing of this makes it nothing but click bait.”

Since the Supreme Court ruling, The New York Times, along with other news organizations, have tried to obtain the documents using the Freedom of Information Act. The Courant received the documents without redaction, but State Police officials said Monday that a redacted version would be released to other journalists next week.

The excerpts offered a glimpse into Lanza’s life as he holed himself away, his interactions largely limited to chats online with other gamers.

Investigators also found some of his personal writings, as well as notes from a play he wrote about a sexual relationship between a 30-year-old man and a child.

His writings showed a disdain for “fat people.” Doctors have said that he was anorexic and malnourished, standing 6 feet tall and weighing 112 pounds when he died. In the excerpts, he called starving “an example of will power” and said, “I want to walk in the snow and leave no footprints.”

On the morning of Dec. 14, 2012, Lanza killed his mother, Nancy, shooting her four times as she slept. He then drove to the Sandy Hook campus, where he stormed inside carrying an AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle. In a span of less than five minutes, he fired 154 rounds before fatally shooting himself. (The weapons had been legally bought by his mother.)

A year later, state officials released a report stating that, in his final months, he kept black trash bags over the windows of his bedroom to keep out light and had communicated with his mother through email, even though he lived with her.

Another report, released by the Connecticut child advocate’s office in 2014, stated that Lanza had orchestrated a “purposefully thought-out and planned attack.” The report said that he had repeatedly visited Sandy Hook’s website and also studied the school’s security procedures. Investigators also noted that he had long been on a path headed toward “a deteriorating life of dysfunction and isolation.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/nyregion/documents-sandy-hook-shooter.html" id="d165b38f-43bf-39d8-af62-249594c26ce6">The New York Times</a>.

Newly Released Documents Detail Sandy Hook Shooter's Troubled State of Mind

He spent much of his time in his mother’s basement and in his bedroom with blacked-out windows, essentially turning into the “homebound recluse” a psychiatrist who had evaluated him feared he could become. He obsessed over violence, culling together an elaborate spreadsheet documenting decades of mass killings. His worldview appeared bleak in interactions with others.

Lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers exposed crucial confidential records and completely transformed the tobacco industry.

Now, families of the victims from the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School hope to replicate the tactic: using litigation as a means to pry open the gun industry, employing the discovery process to unearth internal communications and examine the practices behind marketing and selling powerful firearms like the one used in the attack.

“We can find out what the Remington defendants have tried every step of the way to block in discovery,” said David Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son, Ben, died at Sandy Hook, about the gunmaker that was among the companies named in the lawsuit.

Joshua D. Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, described the discovery stage as “really the most important thing we’ve been waiting to do.”

The ruling last month — allowing the families to maneuver around the vast federal protections shielding the gun industry from some lawsuits — arrived more than six years after the gunman stormed into the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 26 people, including 20 first-graders.

Gun companies are protected from most legal action when their weapons are used to commit a crime, as stipulated by Congress in 2005. The families tested a novel strategy to pierce those protections by focusing on the marketing for the AR-15-style Bushmaster used by the gunman in the attack.

In the lawsuit, the families assert that the weapon used in the massacre was marketed in a way — with militaristic and hypermasculine slogans — that specifically reached out to troubled young men like the one who carried out the attack.

The families’ aim, according to past legal filings, is to compel the companies to turn over troves of documents in hope that the records will bolster the case, like those discussing strategies for branding and promoting the weapon, including product placements in video games and marketing it as a good gift for family members.

Financial documents filed by Remington with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that increasing sales of the Bushmaster AR-style rifles was one of the company’s highest priorities in 2009. That year, a Remington executive’s bonus was tied to implementing a plan for the company to hit specific sales targets for the Bushmaster weapon like the one legally purchased by the gunman’s mother. The executive exceeded the company’s target for 2009.

The recent court decision offered a moment of triumph for the Newtown families, who still face new struggles and daily reminders of their loss. Newtown was shaken again by the recent suicide of Jeremy Richman, whose 6-year-old daughter, Avielle, was among the Sandy Hook victims.

It remains unknown exactly what records will be excavated in the Sandy Hook case, but hundreds of miles away in Florida, Fred Guttenberg took notice.

He is pursuing his own legal action, in his case against the parent company of Smith &amp; Wesson, which made the weapon used in the attack at the Parkland, Florida, high school where his 14-year-old daughter, Jaime, was killed.

The development in Connecticut has emboldened him in his own effort.

“They’re concerned and they should be concerned,” Guttenberg, whose daughter was one of 17 people killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said of the gun industry.

By bringing a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the weapon used by the gunman, legal experts said, the families were pursuing a familiar strategy that had led to the revelation in other industries — the tobacco business, car manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies — of dishonest practices and a disregard for the well-being of customers and the public.

“There are just so many product liability cases that have unfolded in similar ways,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. “They dug and dug and dug and found out what actually happened,” he added. “Discovery is the tool.”

Remington and the other companies named in the lawsuit, along with others in the gun industry, have mounted a vigorous defense.

They counter that federal law shields the companies from these kinds of claims when their weapons are used in a crime. Remington has asked the state court to delay any ruling in anticipation of an expected appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the gun companies did not respond to requests for comment.

The discovery process is a portion of the case where lawyers amass evidence, drawing from depositions with the sworn testimony of executives, experts and others, written questionnaires submitted to the other side and documents that the opposing side is compelled to turn over.

The volume of lawsuits against tobacco companies prompted the release of documents — from the discovery process during suits as well as disclosures from corporate whistleblowers — that showed the companies had known far more than they had publicly acknowledged about the harmful effects of their products and the addictive nature of nicotine. The information led to a shift in society’s impressions of tobacco.

Now, large volumes of documents about cigarette companies are available online; one archive maintained by the University of California San Francisco has 90,111,026 pages, much of it coming from lawsuits.

“It stripped away all credibility of anything the industry might say,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and a leading figure in the litigation against tobacco companies.

But just as other plaintiffs have drawn lessons from tobacco litigation, so have other industries. Myers said it was very likely that the gun companies had studied the tobacco companies’ shortcomings.

“What became clear from the tobacco industry documents: There was a brazenness in believing they could keep these documents from the public eye,” Myers said. “They wrote down things that careful people would not write down.”

The Sandy Hook gun lawsuit has attracted intense interest because, unlike other legal battles over weapons, it has not been clobbered by the protections enshrined in federal law.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the families’ claims, yet also found that federal law did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims under Connecticut state law.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing the firearm industry, said the ruling was “at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope” of the federal protections.

Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a Second Amendment rights organization, criticized the ruling. “I think it’s a miscarriage of justice,” he said. He also disputed the depiction of the semi-automatic rifle as a combat weapon too dangerous or complicated for civilians.

But advocates of gun control and others welcomed the ruling as an indication that the federal protections were not impenetrable.

“Any industry needs robust oversight,” said Alla Lefkowitz, deputy director of affirmative litigation at Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates stricter gun measures. “I’m not aware of any other industry that has this kind of protection and I think it’s particularly inappropriate for any kind of industry to have this kind of protection.”

The victory is not clear cut. The case has languished for years in court; legal experts believe it is still years from being resolved, and could likely return to the state Supreme Court and even advance to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still, Guttenberg was forward-looking. “We’re not going to continue being victims,” he said. “We’re going to fight. We’re going to get this somehow or another fixed.”

This article originally appeared in <a id="d36c10ea-46e3-4fe9-b924-a81f827cf870" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/nyregion/sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit.html">The New York Times</a>.

Sandy Hook families targeting guns take page from tobacco litigation

Documents proved there were cover-ups: The industry knew about the dangers, but hid facts from consumers, and millions of pages described false advertising and suppressed scientific research. The details, once surfaced, not only revealed wrongdoing but changed public perception.

Politics

Local

World

News

Celebrities

Music

Movies

Entertainment

Sports 

Fashion

Beauty & Health

Relationships & Weddings

Food & Travel

Lifestyle

Domestic

International 

Business

About

Highlights

Selection Criteria

Jury

Terms And Conditions

FAQs

Pulse Influencer Awards

Courses

Careers

Explore categories

Pulse Kenya is the most followed news and entertainment platform in Kenya. It informs and engages young Kenyans around the clock and provides updates by the hour.

Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey

Articles written by the author

Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

Sandy Hook Massacre: Gun Makers Lose Major Ruling Over Liability

Newly Released Documents Detail Sandy Hook Shooter's Troubled State of Mind

Sandy Hook families targeting guns take page from tobacco litigation