Remington Sandy Hook lawsuitOp-Ed by Joshua Krause The only exception to this law, is a clause known as negligent entrustment. If, say, a gun store sells to a person who is clearly intoxicated or insane, they can be sued. So the plaintiffs cited negligent entrustment when they sued these companies, and claimed that the way they marketed these AR-15 style weapons, makes them responsible for the people who are killed by them. According to a CNN interview with the attorney for the families: Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it. They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money. The lawsuit has now reached a make or break moment. Remington has just moved to dismiss it before they ever go to trial, and the judge is preparing to make a final decision. At this point, either the lawsuit will disappear or the judge will decide to move the case to a fact-finding phase, and from there it could go to trial. But theres one fact that the plaintiffs have ignored, as did CNN when they recently interviewed the parents. Adam Lanza didnt buy the gun from Remington or Bushmaster, and it wasnt purchased off the shelves of a gun store. He stole it from his mother before he killed her. So how can the gun manufacturers marketing make them responsible for neglectful entrustment? Its just one more reason why this ridiculous lawsuit needs to be thrown out. Image Credit Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshuas reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshuas website is Strange Danger . Still keeping the Sandy Hook Meme alive. Sandy Hoax!!! What is clearly insane? I dont trust anyone with a weapon in their hands. And I have removed people from my property who have wondered onto my property with weapons and intend to do so in the future. Its a matter of trust of intent as far as I am concerned as a vigilant observer and protector of my person and rights not to be approached on my property with weapons. Since no one died at Sandy Hook remington should counter sue and have them prove there are dead folks. Exactly, there are those of us who would love to see this case go to the fact finding phase. It is actually surprising to see this case was brought forth in the first place since none of the perpetrators of the sandy hook hoax would want the truth about anything that happened to see the light of day. Remington would be doing the country and the people a great service by forcing the supposed victims to actually try and make a case. This would help to put on record a lot of things these hoaxers dont want and help to reveal their deception. 