Connecticut Carry’s Response to Soto v Bushmaster Appeal

Sandy Hook
Connecticut Carry
Connecticut Carry

HARTFORD, Conn. -( In a much-anticipated legal move, an appeal has been filed in the case of Soto et al. v. Bushmaster Firearms International LLC et al.

The appeal seeks to have the Connecticut Supreme Court override a ruling by Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prohibits this kind of frivolous lawsuit.

Connecticut Carry has largely stayed quiet on this case, as we believe organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) that represent the industry are better suited to the task, but we are increasingly being asked for comments on the case as the Connecticut organization that advocates for legal armed self-defense that has been on the leading edge of legal battles here in Connecticut.

Before we make any comments on this case, those comments need to be prefaced:

We have feel nothing but sorrow and empathy for the families of Newtown, Connecticut that went through such horrific loss during the mass murder that occurred in the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

There is a line, however, that the rest of the citizens of Connecticut, and across the nation do not want to see crossed. And that is where their rights are placed in jeopardy because of the actions of a single mentally deranged human being.

We are individuals with rights, and no matter what emotional charge is brought to bear through a collective, we maintain and defend those rights.

In the case of Soto et al. v. Bushmaster Firearms International LLC et al, we believe the families of the victims are being pushed by political interests to make legal assaults against business owners inside and outside of Connecticut that are protected under long-standing and established laws.

There are two likely explanations for such attacks: to use the courts as a de-facto penalty with the cost of those businesses defending themselves being a financial penalty.

But the more likely end goal of this lawsuit is to lose, allowing members of congress to use emotionally-charged arguments to try and change basic legal protections like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

We expect those arguments will fail, especially on a Federal level.


The following are statements from various Connecticut Carry staff:

“While the PLCAA does provide a legal shield against lawsuits like this, PLCAA simply codified common law and tort principles that pre-dates PLCAA for quite some time. PLCAA may be a “new” law in the collective consciousness, the principles contained within the Act are in line with historical precedence of common sense tort law.” – Raymond Johansen, director of education, Connecticut Carry

“The trial court properly applied the law Congress wrote. We believe in the rule of law, and soundly reject any attempts at influencing the judiciary to engage in social activism where fundamental rights are concerned. This case was brought to politicize an inanimate object and to impermissibly restrict the free interstate trade in legal products. This suit was an unconscionable act of “lawfare” targeted towards a good and law-abiding segment of society, and it had to fail.” – Matt Tyszka, director of legislative affairs, Connecticut Carry

“The families of the victims are being used for political ends, and there is an obvious concern over whether or not they are aware of it. Shame on collectivist pimps like Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Christopher Murphy and others that would use this tragedy and the families of the victims to promote their disarmament goals.” – Rich Burgess, president, Connecticut Carry


About Connecticut Carry:
Connecticut Carry is a non-partisan, grassroots, non-profit organization devoted to educating Connecticut to our rights in Connecticut. Visit:

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eric Beebe

The Brady organization attempted a similar suit in the Aurora shooting. In a suit against the ammunition supplier Lucky Gunner, the federal court found for Lucky Gunner and ordered the plaintiffs to pay all costs.


Sandy Hook appears to be a hoax but its hard to tell from my location. If it did in fact happen, I feel great sympathy for the families. However, I dont see any blame in Bushmaster. I own the same type of alledged weapon and this weapon never forced me to use it on innocent children.

Captain Witold Pilecki

I have ZERO sympathy for 99% of the Sandy Hook families. When they damned all of us for the acts of one murderous individual by going all gun-control political, they lost any chance for compassion from this Patriot. Legal gun owners, regardless of the firearms they own, ARE NOT one bad day at work away from mass murder. But that is how they view us, and in their own words, the gun control of 2013 is only the beginning. They demand nothing less than full civilian disarmament. If you think they won’t try to export their nonsense across state lines,… Read more »


While I believe eventually this suit will be rejected, the state of Connecticut and it’s liberal anti-gun agenda has in reality prohibited the sale and purchase of this and similar firearms. Although the rejection of this lawsuit is good for the Manufactures and other states that are 2nd Amendment friendly, we lawful gun owners in Connecticut will still be oppressed by the passage of a law that infringes on our rights. I am afraid that unless Connecticut voters turn over to a Governor and legislature that is pro-second Amendment, our rights will be forever lost.

Clark Kent

Your feet nailed to the floor? MOVE AWAY to a state that respects firearm rights.

Craig Alstott

The “EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!” How long are we going to pretend there was a shooting at the closed since 2008 SandyHook School. It is unbelievable to me how many cowards there are in all levels and all across this country. But Connecticut is the top of the list. I live in Florida, the Orlando shooting was a hoax as well. Wake up and take the red pill. This is ridiculous. We have a country of sheeple. Don’t worry I understand why you don’t publish it quite yet, but I will not stay silent anymore. Our country would be better… Read more »

chicken little

Damn! I knew those were hoaxes.


Hmmm, I’m guessing that visitors are no longer welcome at the site of the demolished school.


As do I !


I agree with Laddyboy, +1!!


I hope the sued companies or individuals return the suit for the entire cost of the litigation, court, loss of work hours, lawyer and emotional distress factors. Make the SUERS pay for the entire cost of this frivolous court case.


I also !