![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/Screen-Shot-2019-03-14-at-2.05.19-PM.png\")
<\/a>Attorney Josh Koskoff speaks at a news conference with family of victims and attorneys on the steps of the Connecticut state Supreme Court on Nov. 14, 2017.CreditCreditJessica Hill for The New York Times<\/p><\/div>\n
By Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey
\nThe New York Times<\/p>\n
[What you need to know to start the day:\u00a0<\/em>Get New York Today in your inbox<\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit to move forward against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.<\/p>\n The ruling allows the lawsuit brought by victims\u2019 relatives to potentially go to trial, which could force gun companies to turn over internal communications that they have fiercely fought to keep private and provide a revealing \u2014 and possibly damaging \u2014 glimpse into how the industry operates.<\/p>\n The court agreed with the lower court judge\u2019s decision to dismiss claims that directly challenged the federal law shielding the gun companies from litigation, but found the case can move forward based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.<\/p>\n Justices wrote in the majority opinion that \u201cit falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.\u201d<\/p>\n The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby.<\/p>\n The ruling\u00a0validates the novel strategy<\/a> lawyers for the victims\u2019 families used as they sought to find a route around the vast protections in federal law that guard gun companies from litigation when their products are used to commit a crime.<\/p>\n The victims\u2019 relatives had faced long odds as they argued that the gun companies bore some responsibility for the horrific attack.<\/p>\n The lawsuit argued that the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the 2012 attack had been marketed as a weapon of war, invoking the violence of combat and using slogans like \u201cConsider your man card reissued.\u201d<\/p>\n Such messages reflected, according to the lawsuit, a deliberate effort to appeal to troubled young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old who charged into the elementary school and killed 26 people, including 20 first graders, in a spray of gunfire. The attack traumatized the nation and made Newtown, Conn.,\u00a0the small town where it happened<\/a>, a rallying point in the broader debate over gun violence.<\/p>\n The high stakes posed by the case stirred a vigorous response from both sides that only intensified after recurring episodes of deadly mass violence that followed the Newtown attack.<\/p>\n Among those who lobbied in support of the lawsuit were gun violence prevention groups, emergency doctors who treated patients wounded by assault rifle fire and a statewide association of school superintendents.<\/p>\n Many gun-rights groups also raised their concerns, including the National Rifle Association, which contended in its brief that allowing the case to move ahead stood to \u201ceviscerate\u201d the gun companies\u2019 legal protections.<\/p>\n The ruling comes as yet another twist in the lawsuit\u2019s circuitous path through the court system, one that continued far longer than many, including legal experts and the families, had initially expected.<\/p>\n The\u00a0ruling had been delayed<\/a>\u00a0after Remington, the manufacturer and one of the nation\u2019s oldest gun makers, filed for bankruptcy last year as its sales declined and debts mounted.<\/p>\n The lawsuit, brought by family members of nine people who were killed and a teacher who was shot and survived, was originally filed in 2014, then moved to federal court, where a judge ordered that it be returned to the state level.<\/p>\n<\/div>