 Connecticut Supreme Court justices spent more than 90 minutes Tuesday peppering attorneys for some victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and the manufacturer of the gun used by the shooter with questions about the merits of a lawsuit filed by the families seeking to hold Remington Outdoor Co. liable for Adam Lanza’s shooting spree. In front of a packed courtroom that included about a half dozen victims’ families, lawyers representing special interest groups including the National Rifle Association and a group of physicians who have treated the victims of mass shootings, and national media, the five justices focused their questions on “negligent entrustment,” 100-year-old Connecticut laws and how a case about a slingshot injury in Michigan equates to one of the worst mass shootings in the country’s history. A Superior Court judge in Bridgeport dismissed the lawsuit in 2016 agreeing with attorneys for Remington that the lawsuit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. Negligent entrustment is defined as “supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.” 
 
 Koskoff started his argument taking the courtroom back to the morning of Dec. 14, 2012 to a “young man on a mission” who knew exactly what weapon to choose to carry out the killings — a Bushmaster assault weapon. The rifle was bought by Lanza’s mother, whom he also killed, as a gift for him or for the two of them to share, the lawsuit claims. That was the fourth mass shooting involving assault weapons that has occurred since the Sandy Hook lawsuit was filed. That's morally reprehensible and, from a marketing perspective, that's just wrong and needs to stop," Hockley said.
– The families of nine Sandy Hook victims and one teacher who survived the deadly mass shooting presented their case to Connecticut Supreme Court justices Tuesday in their lawsuit against Remington, maker of the AR-15 weapon used by Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six adults in 2012, the Hartford Courant reports. The victims' argument centers around the marketing campaign behind the AR-15, which the mother of one 6-year-old victim tells CBS News was "morally reprehensible." The lawsuit claims Remington linked "the AR-15 to macho vigilantism and military-style insurrection" in order to target a "younger demographic" and increase sales. One AR-15 ad included the tagline "consider your man card reissued." Another ad touted it as "the ultimate combat weapons system," according to Reuters. Josh Koskoff, lawyer for the victims' families, compared it to "the Ford Motor Company advertising a car that can run over people" and said that kind of advertising attracts "dangerous users," including Lanza. "Adam Lanza heard their message," Koskoff told the justices Tuesday. "He idolized the military and Remington advertised the AR-15 as the weapon used by Army Rangers." He says Remington "knew exactly what they were doing" with its marketing strategies. James Vogts, lawyer for Remington, says the company is protected by the 2005 Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that shields gun makers from liability in shootings. "No matter how much we wished those children and teachers were still alive, the law needs to be applied," Vogts told justices. Following Tuesday's arguments, justices will decide whether the families' lawsuit can go to trial.