The National Rifle Association left little to the imagination in their March 2019 issue of American Rifleman, citing Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and gun control advocate, former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Gifford — herself an assault rifle victim — as in the line of fire and perhaps in need of a little target practice.

On Feb. 18th, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson found herself in the crosshairs after rejecting Roger Stone’s effort to get his case reassigned to a new judge. A target symbol appeared next to Judge Jackson’s head.

Stone later shared a statement — which he reiterated when reached by BuzzFeed News — saying, "This was random photo taken from the internet .Any [sic] inference that this was meant to somehow threaten the Judge or disrespect court is categorically false."

There’s no doubt that these are macho men. The white nationalist assassin from Australia who Facebook livestreamed with his assault on two New Zealand mosques Friday is also a macho man. that currently leaves 50 dead and 50 hospitalized — many in critical condition.

On Thusday, March 14th, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a lower-court ruling, agreeng with Connecticut’s Sandy Hook families that the marketing employed by Remington Arms, a major manufacturer of deadly assault rifles and specifically the AF15, was so aggregious in appealing to men’s “killer instincts” that it transgressed against federal immunity laws that protect gun manufacturers from liability.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it 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."

The NRA and Roger Stone will swear on a Bible that their words and pictures aren’t really meant to incite violence against Nancy Pelosi and Gaggy Giffords. We’re just clutching our pearls!! But if the US Supreme Court let’s the Connecticut Supreme Court decision stand, we might find fewer prominent women in the crosshairs of America’s macho men. Given Gabby Giffords permanent brain disability, and the mounting dead carcasses at the hands of testosterone-infused nationalists worldwide, we have every right to be concerned. One social conservative determined to kill me for supporting Planned Parenthood on TV is enough.

Read on in Salon. Sandy Hook Lawsuit Court Victory Opens Crack In Gun Maker Immunity Shield

By Timothy D. Lytton Distinguished University Professor & Professor of Law, Georgia State University. First published on The Conversation.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on March 14 that families of the Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting victims could proceed with a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used in the attack.

The ruling, which reversed a lower court’s decision, has the potential to unleash a flood of claims by gun violence victims against gun manufacturers – if it’s upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, that is.

My research on the history of lawsuits against the gun industry has documented the failure of gun violence victims to hold gun manufacturers liable for legal marketing practices that many people consider irresponsible. The latest Sandy Hook decision could pave the way for gunmakers to finally be held responsible for them.

Interpreting ‘applicable’

A 2006 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits that arise out of the criminal misuse of a weapon.

The Sandy Hook families argued that their lawsuit fell under an exception to this federal immunity. The exception allows gun violence victims to sue a manufacturer who “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm.

The families claimed that Remington Arms “marketed, advertised and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies.” They said that this marketing constituted an unfair trade practice under Connecticut law, which they argued is a state statute “applicable” to the marketing of a firearm.

The Connecticut high court agreed and, importantly, interpreted the term “applicable” broadly. That is, the court said that a relevant statute only had to be “capable of being applied” to gun sales, not that the law needed be specifically about firearms, as other courts had held.

What’s next

It is this interpretation that could potentially unleash a flood of lawsuits across the country.

Since many states have unfair trade practices laws like Connecticut’s, it seems likely that gun violence victims will bring similar claims elsewhere. Victims are thus likely to allege that a gun manufacturer’s aggressive marketing of combat-style weapons violates a state statute – like an unfair trade practice law – that is applicable to the sale or marketing of a firearm.

The AR-15 assault rifle was engineered to create what one of its designers called “maximum wound effect.” Its tiny bullets – needle-nosed and weighing less than four grams – travel nearly three times the speed of sound. As the bullet strikes the body, the payload of kinetic energy rips open a cavity inside the flesh – essentially inert space – which collapses back on itself, destroying inelastic tissue, including nerves, blood vessels and vital organs. “It’s a perfect killing machine,” says Dr. Peter Rhee, a leading trauma surgeon and retired captain with 24 years of active-duty service in the Navy. via Rolling Stone

The fate of the Sandy Hook lawsuit and any others that follow will depend on the outcome of an all-but-certain appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court rejects the Connecticut Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the word “applicable” in the federal statue, that will restore the immunity from suit that gun makers have enjoyed for more than a decade.

However, if the top U.S. court adopts Connecticut’s broad interpretation, then the gun industry can expect to be the target of a great deal more litigation in the years to come.

Related: Which is higher: The number of people, or the number of guns, in America? PolitiFact 2018