During Monday’s edition of CBS’ Evening News the network threw their weight behind a lawsuit against Remington, which is trying to find the gun-manufacturer liable for the shooting in Newtown Connecticut. “Congress shielded gun-makers from most lawsuits except when a gun is sold negligently to someone who is a high risk,” stated anchor Scott Pelley, “Well, the parents argue that the AR-15 assault rifle is so inherently dangerous that selling it to anyone is negligent.”
The network tried to make the argument for the families. “The families claim Remington and its distributor were negligent in allowing the gun to get into the hands of a mentally ill gunman,” reported Michelle Miller. She backed up her statement with court room footage of their representation Josh Koskoff saying, “The AR-15 worked exactly as it was designed to do.”
The only counter argument shown during Miller’s report was defense lawyer Peter Barry in court saying, “Mrs. Landza never visited the Sandy Hook elementary school with a firearm. It was her son who did.” A hollow depiction of Remington’s defense in the case.
Miller argued that the advertising for the firearm is the problem. She even brought on a victim’s parents to reinforce the claim. “They're not advertising these weapons for hunting. They're not advertising these weapons for protection,” exclaimed Jackie Barden.
To drive the message home that Remington is in the wrong Miller interview Heidi Feldman, a Georgetown University professor, who said, “The gun industry is, I believe, terribly afraid of being the next cigarette manufacturer.”
Before finishing her report Miller sympathized with the families, “This is the first lawsuit of its kind to get this far through the legal system in what is sure to continue to be an uphill battle.”
CBS ran a similar story Monday on This Morning.
Transcript below:
CBS
Evening News
June 20, 2016
6:42:28 PM Eastern [2 Minutes 56 Seconds]SCOTT PELLEY: Well, the ban on assault weapons in Connecticut and New York will remain in place. Today the U.S. Supreme Court rejected arguments that those bans violate the second amendment. They were passed after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.
Parents of some of those children who died were in court today trying a new approach to holding the maker of the gun liable. Congress shielded gun-makers from most lawsuits except when a gun is sold negligently to someone who is a high risk. Well, the parents argue that the AR-15 assault rifle is so inherently dangerous that selling it to anyone is negligent. Michelle Miller is in Hartford.
[Cuts to video]
JOSH KOSKOFF: The AR-15 is the most dangerous, most lethal...
MICHELLE MILLER: Josh Koskoff represents ten Newtown families suing Remington, the manufacturer of the AR-15 used to kill 20 children and 6 adults three and a half years ago.
KOSKOFF: The AR-15 worked exactly as it was designed to do.
MILLER: The families claim Remington and its distributor were negligent in allowing the gun to get into the hands of a mentally ill gunman. Defense lawyer Peter Barry says that’s not true.
PETER BARRY: Mrs. Landza never visited the Sandy Hook elementary school with a firearm. It was her son who did.
MILLER: It's the latest challenge to the 2005 federal law that shields the gun industry from most lawsuits over the criminal use of firearms. But the Newtown families say the way the military style weapon is marketed is the problem. They point to advertisements that use phrases like "Consider your man card reissued." Mark and Jackie Barden lost their seven-year-old Daniel at Sandy Hook.
JACKIE BARDEN: They're not advertising these weapons for hunting. They're not advertising these weapons for protection.
MILLER: One week after another gunman used a similar high-capacity military-style rifle to kill 49 people in an Orlando club, Georgetown law professor Heidi Feldman says the stakes are even higher.
HEIDI FELDMAN: The gun industry is, I believe, terribly afraid of being the next cigarette manufacturer.
BARDEN: This is what we need to do to make sure this stops, you know. Daniel deserved to live a full life.
[Cuts back to video]
MILLER: This is the first lawsuit of its kind to get this far through the legal system in what is sure to continue to be an uphill battle. Scott, the judge has until October to decide whether this case does indeed go to trial.
