The Connecticut Supreme Court will hear an appeal from the families of nine Sandy Hook victims and one survivor in their case against the sellers of the AR-15 used in the 2012 Newtown shooting.

Just two weeks after the families filed their appeal, the Court transferred the case to its own docket, allowing the lawsuit to bypass the Appellate Court and be heard directly by the state’s highest court.

Calling the Newtown massacre a “singular event in Connecticut history,” the families are appealing the decision of a Bridgeport Superior Court judge to dismiss the case.

“We are grateful that the Connecticut Supreme Court will hear our case immediately,” said Nicole Hockley, whose son, Dylan, was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. “Our goal is and always has been to help prevent the next Sandy Hook, and today is an important step in that direction.”

“We very much welcome the Court’s swift action, particularly as these families approach the fourth painful anniversary of the shooting,” said the families’ attorney, Josh Koskoff of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder. “Time and again our Supreme Court has recognized the importance of allowing litigants their day in court and the indispensable role of a jury as arbiters of justice. That is all these families have ever asked for.”

“This case raises critical questions about reasonableness and accountability in an era where combat rifles are deliberately marketed as weapons of war, no matter how many schools are transformed into battlefields as a result,” said Katie Mesner-Hage, also of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder. “The Supreme Court is best positioned to decide those questions.”

The families’ appeal papers described the profound effect of the shooting on Connecticut.

“The loss of twenty first-graders and six educators would shake any community to its core.  Ours had to grapple with the manner in which those lives were lost.  Children and teachers were gunned down in classrooms and hallways with a weapon that was designed for our armed forces and engineered to deliver maximum carnage. The assault was so rapid that no police force on earth could have been expected to stop it. Fifty-pound bodies were riddled with five, eleven, even thirteen bullets.  This is not sensationalism. It is the reality the defendants created when they chose to sell a weapon of war and aggressively market its assaultive capabilities. Ten families who paid the price for those choices seek accountability through Connecticut common and statutory law. It is only appropriate that Connecticut’s highest court decide whether these families have the right to proceed.”

The suit alleges that the AR-15 assault weapon used in the shooting was negligently entrusted to the public, and that the defendants violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) in aggressively and unethically marketing the AR-15 to the public.

In their decision to hear the case, the Court accepted the families’ argument that the meaning of certain language in CUTPA must be determined by the state Supreme Court.

The families alleged that the AR-15 is a killing machine designed as a military weapon to inflict mass carnage.

It can unleash 30 rounds in under 10 seconds and can penetrate body armor.  It has exceptional muzzle velocity, making each hit lethal, and its large capacity magazines allow for rapid-fire, prolonged assaults.

It was built for warfare and has been the military’s weapon of choice for 50 years because of its efficiency as a mass casualty weapon.

When entrusted to the military, the AR-15 requires more than 100 hours of training and is subject to strict protocols on safety and storage.

The lawsuit argues that the weapons’ sellers, including Remington, made a calculated decision to aggressively market and sell the AR-15 to the public, knowing that the necessary structure and oversight found in the military was utterly lacking.

“That carefully executed marketing campaign, which continues today, has made the AR-15 the weapon of choice for mass murderers,” the families said. “Indeed, it has been used in massacres at San Bernardino, Aurora and several other preventable tragedies.”