NEWTOWN – The gun maker at the center of a wrongful death lawsuit brought by 10 families of Sandy Hook massacre victims has asked the judge for a second time to dismiss the case.

The motion by Remington earlier this week in Bridgeport Superior Court is a common pretrial tactic in a case that is anything but common.

The families’ claim that Remington negligently entrusted an AR-15 rifle to the civilian market that was used to massacre 26 first-graders and educators has been a prominent topic among lawmakers and presidential candidates.

It is also unusual for a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun industry to advance toward trial. The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields the gun industry from most claims when people misuse firearms.

Remington in a motion filed Monday said it did not qualify as the seller of the firearm in question, and therefore is immune from the families’ claim under the 2005 act.

Earlier this year, Remington filed a motion to have the case thrown out of court.

Instead Judge Barbara Bellis set a trial date for 2018 and ordered the two sides to begin exchanging evidence.

Remington claims it manufactured a legal firearm and transferred it legally to a distributor, who then sold it legally to a retailer, who sold it legally to Nancy Lanza.

Lanza is the mother of 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who took the AR-15 rifle from his mother’s unlocked closet and shot his way into a locked Sandy Hook School on Dec. 14, 2012, committing the worst crime in Connecticut history.

Lanza shot his mother before driving to the school. He fired 154 bullets in 264 seconds and then shot himself.

Remington in its motion said it was trying to save the court from wasting its time and save the two sides from wasting their money by prolonging the lawsuit.

“By filing this motion, no inference should be drawn that Remington has conceded the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s allegations against Remington,” the motion reads. “On the contrary, Plaintiff’s claims against Remington remain legally insufficient…”

A legal observer on Tuesday said he doubted the judge would allow the families’ claim to go this far only to dismiss it on a routine motion by Remington.

The motion for summary judgment says ‘Looking at the facts – the plaintiffs can’t win,’” said W. John Thomas, a professor of law at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. “It is a typical strategy in any kind of civil litigation, and I would bet the judge denies it.”

[email protected]; 203-731-3342