Newtown Families' Suit Against Gun Maker Dismissed Their lawyer vows an immediate appeal By Newser Editors and Wire Services Posted Oct 14, 2016 6:09 PM CDT 62 comments Comments In this July 29, 2016 file photo, painted hand prints with names of teachers and students are on a playground bench at the new Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Students attended the first... (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File) (Newser) – A judge on Friday dismissed a wrongful-death lawsuit by Newtown families against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre, citing an embattled federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products. State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the Dec. 14, 2012, school attack, in which a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle made by Remington. The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine. Their lawyer vowed an immediate appeal of Friday's ruling, the AP reports. The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes. Advocates for gun control and against gun violence have criticized the law as special protection for gun makers. Lawyers for Remington said Congress passed the act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system. But the families' attorneys argued the lawsuit was allowed under an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others, and the judge disagreed.