In general, a question of law is left to the judge to decide. Questions of fact are left to the trier of fact, which is most often a jury. For example, if a person is being sued for a car crash at an intersection. Whether the light was red or green is a question of fact, for a jury to decide. Whether the law requires a person to yield to cross traffic is a question of law, left to the judge to decide.
In this situation, I'm afraid that the lawyers will argue that ARs are inherently too dangerous a product to put in the public possession, so the company is liable from a product liability perspective. Company lawyers will argue that there is no question of fact, and the law supports dismissal, citing to the protection law. Defense will argue back that it is a question of fact if ARs arw too dangerous for public use, so the jury must make that decision. The question may come down to the courage of the judge...will he take a stand against the case, callnit a legal issue, and throw it out. Or will the judge take the easy way out, let a jury make the call, and avoid any political angle on a gun issue...
