Josh Koskoff of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, one of the attorneys representing the families, said in a statement that he plans to appeal the decision.

“While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge's decision, this is not the end of the fight. We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening,” Koskoff said.

Several federal representatives for Connecticut released a statement after the ruling calling the PLCAA a “misguided law” that “denies victims of gun violence their fair day in court.” U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, and Rep. Elizabeth Esty, continued, “We disagree with today's decision and will continue our fight to repeal this reprehensible law.”

The plaintiffs sought to fit their claims through exceptions to the PLCAA that allow suits for negligent entrustment, or violations of applicable state and federal statutes. Bellis found that the case could not proceed after weighing what little appellate guidance exists.

Regarding the negligent entrustment arguments, Bellis said the clear intent of Congress was a narrow application of the exception.

“Adam Lanza's use of the firearm is the only actionable use,” Bellis said. “Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not alleged that any of the defendants' entrustees 'used' the firearm within the confines of PLCAA's definition of the term. To the contrary, the plaintiffs have alleged facts that place them directly in the category of victims to which Congress knowingly denied relief.”

Legally purchased

The families sued Remington and others in Connecticut Superior Court in 2014, alleging that the company shares liability for the deaths of those gunned down by Lanza using a Remington Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. The plaintiffs alleged that the Remington defendants sold the weapon to the distributor Camfour Inc., which in turn sold the rifle to the gun shop Riverview Sales, which then sold the gun to Lanza's mother.

Camfour and Riverview are also listed as defendants.

The plaintiffs — nine families of those who died in the December 2012 shooting and survivor Natalie Hammond—argued that selling such an assault rifle to civilians posed an unreasonable and egregious risk of physical injury to others.

Christopher Renzulli of the Renzulli Law Firm, who represented the Camfour defendants, said the court properly applied the law to the facts.

“This is the type of case that the PLCAA was enacted to prevent,” Renzulli said.

Peter Berry of Berry Law, who represented Riverview, said the ruling was a “step in the right direction” for his client, but added, “my heart goes out to the families, as I think is the case with everyone involved in this.”

Attorneys from Swanson, Martin and Bell and Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni, which represented Remington and Bushmaster defendants, respectively, did not respond to a request for comment.

Contact Max Mitchell at [email protected]. On Twitter: @MMitchellTLI.