In the wake of the tragic massacre in Uvalde, Texas, in May that took the lives of 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School, it was probably inevitable that people would seek to lay blame for the shooting through the legal system. And just over a week later, that process has begun, according to NPR.

A speech pathology clerk who hid during the May 24, 2022 massacre at Robb Elementary has started court proceedings against Savannah, Georgia-based gunmaker Daniel Defense.

It is the first reported legal action taken as a result of the mass shooting, which killed 21 children [sic] and two adults. While not a full-blown lawsuit, the filing seeks to determine if the gun manufacturer can be sued for how it promotes firearms.

“They’re marketing to people who it’s not reasonable should have guns … and we think that may be young people,” said attorney Don Flanary.

As RedState previously reported, the week of the NRA national convention, which was being held in Houston, TX, gun manufacturer Daniel Defense was taking flak after word got out that the company had made one of the AR-style rifles sold to the Uvalde shooter. That vicious attack by NBC News was a blatant, joint assault effort of media and gun control activists, something which I’ll expand on in another piece.

One intriguing excerpt from NPR’s story, which readers might find contains quite a coincidence, shows that this isn’t the only shooting the Robb Elementary clerk is looking to get Daniel Defense on the record about:

In court documents filed Thursday in the 38th Judicial District, the clerk, Emilia “Amy” Marin, 56, petitioned the court to force the company to sit for a deposition, as well as to produce materials related to its website, profits, lobbying, sales and marketing of AR-15-style rifles like the one used at the shooting.

…

Marin’s petition also requests information regarding the four Daniel Defense AR-15-style rifles found in the hotel room of the 2017 Las Vegas shooter. Her attorney says they want to examine whether the gun manufacturer did anything differently around its marketing after its guns were used for that crime.

As noted, this is just the first legal action post-Uvalde. Time will tell how these things play out.