The frivolous lawsuit filed by a minority of Sandy Hook Elementary school parents against Bushmaster and Remington Arms has been dismissed.

A Superior Court judge has thrown out the lawsuit against the gun maker brought by the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

In a 54-page decision filed Friday afternoon, Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion to strike the entire lawsuit brought against the gun maker,Remington Outdoor Company, the dealer, Camfour Inc. and the company that owned the gun store, Riverview Sales where A___ L___’*s mother bought the assault rifle.

The judge ruled the lawsuit does not satisfy the exception to federal law preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the actions of gun owners under either the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) or the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

“Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law,” the judge wrote. “A plaintiff under CUTPA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commcercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.”

We commented on the sad absurdity of this case back in February.

The exploitative lawsuit filed by Koshoff, Sterling, and Mesner-Hage is based on the theory of “negligent entrustment.” The plaintiff’s argument is that the Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster Firearms, the manufacturer of the XM15-E2S, marketed their guns in such a way as to encourage violent crazy people to buy them. Of course, the Sandy Hook murderer didn’t buy the carbine he used in his attack. He murdered his own mother to gain access to it.

But hey, reality be damned; lawyers wanna get paid.

Further, these shysters are arguing that AR-15s—the most common rifle sold in the United States year after year, used in more than a half-dozen kinds of formal shooting competitions, for informal target shooting, home defense, hunting, and simply for fun—is a “weapon of war” that no civilian should have.

The semi-automatic AR-15s sold to U.S. civilians, of course, are not used in combat by any known military on earth.

Militaries instead use selective-fire M16s and M4s, which American civilians have not been able to buy from manufacturers at any price since the Hughes Amendment passed as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986.

The vultures of Koskoff Koskoff and Bieder are arguing that the most common rifle sold in the United States, which is, as a subset of rifles is one of the least likely instruments of murder in the nation, should be banned. Put bluntly, these attorneys appear to be hoping to find a way to sue gun companies out of existence, and get rich in the process.

The judge has a very simple choice in this case.

She can allow the continuance of an obviously frivolous lawsuit filed by unscrupulous attorneys, and set the stage for every company in the world to be sued out of their existence due to their choice of advertising, or she can throw this case out.

Let’s hope Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis is not among the world’s crazy people.

Clearly, Judge Barbara Bellis did not buy the argument made by lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Joshua Koskoff, who argued that the American people are “notoriously incompetent,” and unfit to own guns in common use.

* * *

Like this vile attorney, Hillary Clinton thinks that the American people are both inherently violent and stupid.

If a mentally ill 20-year-old murders his mother, steals her car keys, and plows the most popular car sold in the United States into a bus stop killing dozens, should the families of the victims be able to sue Toyota for manufacturing an “assault vehicle?”

While we’d all feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the victims, we’d also instinctively know that a lawsuit from a twisted family attorney and “traffic safety” zealots claiming that it was “criminally negligent” to manufacture a vehicle that could go more than posted speed limit of 45 MPH in the area was absurd.

Yet that is precisely the argument being made by Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton, as she supports the lawsuit filed by a small group of crime victims, who are attempting to claim that gun manufacturers are criminally negligent in manufacturing a rifle that has been sold in the United States for more than five decades, and which is the most popular rifle purchased year in and year out due to it’s light weight, low recoil, accuracy, and inexpensive, intermediate-caliber ammunition.

Mrs. Clinton’s views on the right to bear arms are the most radical ever from a presidential candidate in the history of the United States.

Senator Russ Feingold just admitted on a hidden camera that if she is elected, Clinton will likely attempt to exceed her authority as President and use executive orders to attack the Constitution.

Clinton wants gun manufacturers sued out of existence, and gut the right to bear arms in the process.

Think of this when you vote less than a month from now.

* Bearing Arms does not publish the names of mass or spree killers.