In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing a lawsuit that was filed by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against Remington Arms, who manufactured the assault weapon that was used during that mass shooting. Just last month, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Remington Arms, which argued that it is immune from liability and cannot be sued because of a 2005 federal law, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes.  However, the Plaintiffs argued that they can proceed in suing the manufacturer because their theory of the case falls within an exception to the federal law (called the Predicate Exception), which says that gun manufacturers can be sued when they violate a separate state or federal law that "applies to" the sale or marketing of the product.  The Plaintiffs allege that Remington violated Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in deceptive and unfair marketing practices by selling an assault weapon as dangerous as the AR-15-style rifle to the public for home protection.  Plaintiff's argued that by violating Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, Remington has subjected itself to being sued since that law "applies to" the sale of its product.  Remington argued that the only way it would be subject to suit would be if it violated a law that relates solely to the sale of firearms but the Court disagreed.  The Court said that as long as there is a law that can be "applied to" the sale of firearms, it does not need to be a law that exclusively relates to the sale of firearms.  The Court, in employing a broader interpretation of the exception to the statute, is allowing the Plaintiffs to finally move forward with their case and the implications of this precedent setting ruling cannot be understated.  This decision is a huge victory for victims of mass shootings in circumventing the PLCAA so that they can sue the makers of firearms who are marketing military style weapons to the public for home protection.  Will the Court ultimately decide that Remington is liable for the Sandy Hook shooting?  Did Remington engage in unfair or deceptive marketing practices?  Will the Plaintiffs be able to prove that Remington's unfair or deceptive marketing practices caused the shooter, Adam Lanza, to use the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, thus enabling him to kill 26 innocent people, 20 of whom were children, in less than 5 minutes? All of this remains to be seen but what we do know for now is that the Plaintiffs will have their day in Court and that, in and of itself, is a victory.