The National Rifle Association, 10 states and 22 members of the U.S. House of Representatives filed seven amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday on behalf of Remington Arms Co. LLC, which seeks to have the court rule that a federal law shields it from liability.

The gun maker, which manufactures the AR-15 rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, got support from attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Texas and West Virginia, plus the governor of Mississippi. It asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a Connecticut high court ruling favoring families and survivors who sued over the shooting.

Bridgeport-based law firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder represents parents of nine of the victims of the shooting. It filed a 2014 lawsuit on their behalf, seeking financial damages from Remington and subsidiary Bushmaster Firearms International LLC, which made the rifle gunman Adam Lanza used to kill 20 schoolchildren and six teachers at the school.

But in an Aug. 1 writ of certiorari, the gunmaker cited the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which is meant to protect firearms makers from liability when their products are used for violence.

Connecticut's high court rejected that argument, and ruled the plaintiffs could sue Remington under an exception to the federal law, which allowed for legal action to proceed under state law regarding the sale and marketing of firearms.

The amicus briefs all cite the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Republican James Jordan, ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and 21 other members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed one of those briefs. They said they "have a strong interest in ensuring PLCAA is interpreted and applied consistent with Congress's stated purpose, and that the narrow exceptions to the PLCAA are not applied in a way that frustrates congressional intent and renders the PLCAA's protections meaningless."

The brief continues: "The Connecticut Supreme Court, at the urging of the respondents, however, interpreted the PLCAA's so-called predicate exception in a way that swallows the rule." The state court's reading of the rule, according to the congressional amicus brief, "runs directly counter to Congress' intent to protect firearms manufacturers from 'lawsuits [concerning] firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.'"

The National Rifle Association also weighed in, saying the outcome of the case "may affect the ability of NRA members in Connecticut and elsewhere to obtain firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes."

But plaintiff counsel appeared confident the new filings wouldn't sway the court.

"None of the politically motivated briefs filed on Remington's behalf undermine the well-reasoned determination by our state's highest court that these families deserve their day in court," attorney Katie Mesner-Hage wrote in a statement Thursday. "We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will defer to that ruling."

Representing Remington are Swanson, Martin & Bell Chicago attorneys James Vogts and Andrew Lothson, as well as Baker Botts litigators Scott Keller and Stephanie Cagniart. None of the attorneys responded to a request for comment Thursday.

Read more: