Quoted:
I'm a dumb person but here is my logic

The gun, Bushmaster XM15 semi-auto rifle, is legal to manufacture, market, sale, buy, own, and use for lawful purposes like self-defense.  The gun was legally purchase by the monster mother in 2010.  The monster murdered his mother and stole her guns to use for unlawfully murders.  So by no way is the FFL, distributor, and/or Bushmaster/Remington liable.  

Any smart persons here want to poke holes in my dumb logic?

Quoted:
Read the documents here: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTCV156048103S

Quoted:
I'm a dumb person but here is my logic

The gun, Bushmaster XM15 semi-auto rifle, is legal to manufacture, market, sale, buy, own, and use for lawful purposes like self-defense.  The gun was legally purchase by the monster mother in 2010.  The monster murdered his mother and stole her guns to use for unlawfully murders.  So by no way is the FFL, distributor, and/or Bushmaster/Remington liable.  

Any smart persons here want to poke holes in my dumb logic?

Quoted:
A main tenet of their case is they feel that the defendant knew/knows that civilians are not capable of owning/operating the gun because it is so dangerous and sold it anyway

Quoted:
I read the judge's opinion last night. There's no reason to get worked up (yet). I'll try to summarize it.

Some of the Sandy Hook parents sued Bushmaster (and a bunch of other companies) in Connecticut state court. Bushmaster tried to get the lawsuit moved to federal court, claiming the state court did not have jurisdiction. Bushmaster lost that. The federal court sent the case back to state court.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a federal law that mostly makes gun manufacturers immune from products liability lawsuits. However, the PLCAA lists several circumstances where gun manufacturers can still be sued. The Sandy Hook parents crafted their lawsuit to try to fit within two of these exceptions.

In most courts, a defendant can move to dismiss for every reason it has all in one motion. In Connecticut state courts, the defendant has to attack jurisdiction first and by itself. Other defenses, like immunity from suit under the PLCAA, have to be brought up later.

The motion we're talking about here dealt only with whether the Connecticut state court had jurisdiction. Bushmaster used the PLCAA to argue that the Connecticut state court did not have jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit. This was a longshot legal argument. There are strategic reasons why Bushmaster made it, but I doubt Bushmaster ever expected to win it. All the judge ruled is that the PLCAA did not deprive the Connecticut state court of jurisdiction to decide whether the lawsuit fit within either of the two exceptions to the PLCAA that the Sandy Hook parents sued under.

If you think about it this makes sense. The PLCAA specifically allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers in a few, narrow situations. Since some lawsuits are allowed, there has to be a court that can hear them. The federal court already decided it could not hear the lawsuit and already sent it back to the Connecticut state court where the lawsuit started. With that already happening, there was very little chance the state court judge was going to say it didn't have jurisdiction to decide whether the lawsuit fit within one of the exceptions to the PLCAA.