Several families who suffered losses at the hands of Adam Lanza during the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting are suing a host of gun manufacturers and sellers for damages.

Sadly, this is nothing new. It has long been a practice of the anti-gun left and hungry attorneys to urge the bereaved to go after companies like Springfield Armory and Ruger. But what is surprising is one Connecticut Judge is allowing the case to move forward.

In 2005, Congress passed the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), a shield preventing weapon manufacturers from being brought to court over crimes they had no personal involvement in. The language in the bill is pretty precise: No Federal or State court shall allow any such civil liability claims to be brought to court.

Despite the clear language of the PLCAA, one Judge – in an act of brazen judicial activism – is thumbing her nose at the law in question. That woman is Superior Court Judge, Barbara N. Bellis.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the firearms manufacturers are partly responsible for the actions of Lanza, seeing as they are intentionally making military grade firearms that are “unfit” for civilian use. They conclude that the very act of owning an AR-15 “enables an individual in possession of the weapon to inflict unparalleled civilian carnage”, and that the “[d]efendants chose to sell a military weapon to the civilian market, ignoring the unreasonable and demonstrated risk that its assaultive capabilities would be used against innocent civilians.”

Let us disregard the fact that the weapon used in the Sandy Hook shooting wasn’t a fully automatic – which is a military feature that is illegal for almost all civilian use. And we can even look past the absurdity that most law enforcement officers use the exact same pistols and shotguns as regular gun owners. It is difficult, however, to look past the glaring reality that a standard AR-15 is considerably weaker than many common hunting and target rifles used by millions of law abiding gun owners every day.

To suggest that an AR-15 is more of a “weapon of war” than almost every other rifle and handgun is insane.

The PLCAA clearly states a civil suit may only be heard if the case involves a complaint where the legal firearm was defective in construction, therefore, causing bodily harm to the user, or if the company knowingly engaged in advertising and selling to prohibited persons for the purpose of committing criminal activity.

Since this case does not bear any similarities to those caveats, Judge Bellis was forced to twist logic to its breaking point in order to score political points.

Naturally, the anti-gun zealots at the Brady Campaign were thrilled by the news.

The Washington Post reports:

“After Bellis announced her decision, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it offered “an important win” for the families involved.”

“They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they’ll get it,” Gross said in a statement.”

Additionally on the side of Judge Bellis is none other than Hillary Clinton, who said in a press release the decision is, “an important step forward for these families, who are bravely fighting to hold irresponsible gun makers accountable for their actions.”

The press release came just before Hillary and Bernie Sanders fought on the very same issue during a democratic presidential debate. Hillary pounced on Sanders’ ‘yea’ vote in favor of the PLCAA – an attack so insane, it makes Bernie look sensible.

“I voted against this gun liability law because I was concerned that in rural areas all over this country that if a gun shop owner sells a weapon legally to somebody and that person then goes out and kills somebody, I do not believe it is appropriate for that gun shop owner to be sued,” said Sanders.

If Hillary is elected, we could very well see the protection that the PLCAA gives lawful merchants eradicated.