Mother of 10-year-old Uvalde shooting victim sues school district, police and gun manufacturer

The mother of a 10-year-old killed in the Uvalde school shooting has filed a federal lawsuit against the gun-maker and seller, the city of Uvalde, its school district and several law enforcement officers.

Sandra Torres’ daughter Eliahna was one of 19 students and 2 teachers killed by an 18-year-old gunman at Robb Elementary in May.

“I miss her every moment of every day,” Torres said in a joint press release with her lawyers from Everytown for Gun Safety’s legal team and Texas-based LM Law Group. “I’ve brought this lawsuit to seek accountability. No parent should ever go through what I have.”

The new lawsuit alleges that Daniel Defense — the manufacturer of the shooter’s weapon — violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, arguing that the Georgia-based company’s marketing on social media and video games “prime young buyers to purchase AR-15-style rifles as soon as they are legally able.” Earlier this year, gun-maker Remington settled a lawsuit for $73 million with the Sandy Hook shooting victims’ families who had also targeted the company’s marketing.

I said the holders of Remington who settled the Sandy Hook lawsuit were going to fuck us over.

They did.

Now every grieving parent will be targeted by the blood dancers to file a lawsuit that is engineered to be a runaround the PLCAA.

Just look at the opening of the text of the lawsuit:


What utter horseshit.

This is the Daniel Defense ad they wanted for the Super Bowl.


Their entire marketing campaign is “be a responsible loving parent abd buy our gun to defend your family.”

But a few crying moms and some sympathetic jurors and they will lose.

Unless a Judge in Texas recognizes the purpose of this lawsuit as a way of voiding the PLCAA and dismisses the case.

The Sandy Hook parents and the anti-gun industry has figured out a new avenue for lawfare and they are going to use it.

It is going to suck for the industry unless it’s stopped.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

4 thoughts on “The Remington settlement gave precedent to suing Daniel Defense”
  1. Suing the Uvdale police, I am OK with. Suing the school district, perfectly OK with that as well.
    Suing Daniel Defense because their ads are targeting a market? Nope. I do not care whether it is guns, booze, or cars. Remington crossed a line with the CT lawsuit.
    The time has come to start suing everyone who has any ad that pushes a product that can be used illegally or in a dangerous manner. Imagine suing McDonalds because your child is obese, and they continue to have happy meals targeted directly at kids.

  2. The Remington settlement gave precedent to suing Daniel Defense

    Of course it did. Obviously, Remington’s insurance comany(ies) either didn’t consider it or didn’t give it the weight that it deserved.

  3. “It is going to suck for the industry unless it’s stopped.”

    Well, get ready for the suck, because a LARGE part of the legal system is in cahoots with the fascist demoncrats, Including too many SCROTUS members.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.