Gun Control & RKBA

or support for the plaintiffs' legal position.

However, as an experienced commerical litigator (NY and NJ), I can assure you that's it's very common, if unfortunate, for state trial judges, most of whom are either elected or must be regularly re-appointed to their positions, to consider the political aspects of cases when rendering any decision. The rationale is usually that the losing parties can appeal. Given the anti-gun sentiments among CT politicians and the sympathetic nature of the Sandy Hook families, a decision denying a motion to dismiss would not be surprising (although certainly not guaranteed). This is why the plaintiffs fought desperately to keep the case out of federal court. Hopefully, this particular CT judge will not let emotion cloud legal judgment. In any event, regardless of the initial decision, the case will definitely be appealed to at least the CT Supreme Court if not SCOTUS.

Discovery can also be quite brutal, apart from issues like costs, and a confidentiality order is not automatic, particularly if the judge is tipping the scales against unpopular defendants and believes the more sympathetic plaintiffs might ultimately lose. The information learned in this case, regardless of outcome, might help new and different plaintiffs in the future with even more "novel" legal theories. This is precisely the types of legal strategies employed by parties before the PLCAA. Plaintiffs' attorneys have also indicated they very much want to examine defendants marketing materials and confidential strategies. Even if the lose the case due to the PLCAA or lack of causation, these materials may prove valuable in their public relations efforts against the firearm industry.