Families of Sutherland Springs Shooting Victims Win the Right to Sue Gun Store That Sold Weapons

[Aim1]

From the article:

“The lawsuit, which was brought by Chris Ward, who lost his wife and two children in the shooting, focuses specifically on Academy’s decision to sell Kelley a 30-round high-capacity magazine for the Ruger AR. Thirty-round magazines are legal in Texas but not in Colorado. Academy is arguing that it’s protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which stops victims from suing gun manufacturers and dealers unless they were negligent or broke federal or state laws; Ward and his lawyers argue that Academy shouldn’t have sold Ward the gun and high-cap mag when he bought it with a Colorado ID.”

“In one hand, Webster clutched an AR-556. In the other, a magazine. One doesn’t work without the other, he said, so arguing that “magazine” and “gun” are two different things is like arguing a car isn’t a car without its wheels.”





https://splinternews.com/families-of-sutherland-springs-shooting-victims-win-the-1832332660/amp

 

[FL-NC]

This will be interesting. Hard to prove negligence on the part of the seller since no laws were broken during the commerce.

 

[Steve S.]

“Somebody has to pay”; I think I understand this concept - I cannot take it out on the literal cause of my pain so I will get my pound of flesh from some other entity.
If one looses their right leg in an auto accident because the other driver was texting at the time of the impact, the only pure and equal punishment for the negligent driver is to amputate their right leg. But since we are a country of civilized laws, we substitute money for the like extraction of pain. This civilized process may be acceptable to some but may fall short for others. I don’t know that any amount of money can substitute for a wife and two children but, that is how we do it.

 

[tarosean]

“Somebody has to pay”; I think I understand this concept

The only one who will win is the lawyers...

Dont see this as winnable.

A) You can buy rifles across state lines. He unfortunately passed his background check due to the Military's screw up.
B) No ID is required to buy a Magazine. They are on the shelves of Academy, just like baseball mitts and tennis shoes.

I think a great example is legal marijuana in some states. Its not up to them to police what you do with it. The individual persons onus is on them returning to his/her state, where illegal.

 

[MistWolf]

If they can sue Academy for selling the perp a magazine, they can sue the government for approving the background check for the rifle.

 

[edwardware]

“Somebody has to pay”; I think I understand this concept. . . If one loses their right leg in an auto accident because the other driver was texting at the time of the impact. . .

. . . and then sues Verizon for selling the negligent driver a cell phone.

If they can sue Academy for selling the perp a magazine, they can sue the government for approving the background check. . .

The difference is that the Plaintiff's Attorney thinks he's more likely to squeeze blood from Academy than DoD.

Modern American civil liability law has no realistic penalty for malicious litigation; Plaintiffs very often sue whomever is in sight who's big enough to pay, and small enough to beat. The perp's estate isn't big enough to pay; DoD is too big to beat.

 

[Texas10mm]

B) No ID is required to buy a Magazine. They are on the shelves of Academy, just like baseball mitts and tennis shoes.

In a nutshell this is the problem. Say Academy took the 30 round out of the box and put in a reduced capacity magazine. So the perp pays for the gun, takes it to his car, comes back in and buys a 30 round mag. Same result. How would the second cashier know he was from Colorado?

 

[JONWILL]

If they can sue Academy for selling the perp a magazine, they can sue the government for approving the background check for the rifle.

Good luck with suing the Feds. Just look at the 1915 Gold King mine spill caused by the EPA. They claimed “Sovereign Immunity” to avoid having to pay for it. If a private company did the same thing people would be in prison and the company in bankruptcy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Gold_King_Mine_waste_water_spill

 

[Double_J]

The last time I bought a firearm from Academy the only people who looked at my ID were the clerk at the counter and the manager approving the 4473. The cashier never saw my ID, and I bought an extra magazine and ammo at the same time.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

Unfortunately the plaintiff is going to lose this one, if the argument is specifically about the magazine. Grief is a powerful motivator, but he's pointing it in the wrong direction. Academy broke no law in selling that person a magazine. Truthfully, that person broke no law in purchasing the magazine.

 

[BSA1]

"The case hinges on whether or not a magazine is considered part of a gun (hence Webster’s tire analogy). The technical nature of the case is undoubtedly going to make gun rights activists furious—there’s an easy argument to make in Academy’s favor because it sold a magazine that was legal in Texas. But what’s important about the case, to me, is the precedent it would set for weapons dealers. They have to be flawless about this stuff: If someone tries to buy a gun with a Colorado ID, look up the Colorado gun laws."

So if I buy 18" tires for my car while in Texas and that size tire is illegal in Colorado I am libel for damages if my vehicle is involved in a accident in Texas because the tires are illegal in Colorado.

The case actually hinges on the laws of one State (Colorado) extending past it's borders and infringing on the laws of another.

 

[Speedo66]

So it's legal for him to buy the rifle, and legal for him to buy, and use, the magazine in Texas.

Is the store supposed to be prescient in knowing he will remove it to another state where it is illegal?

Venue will be important, a group of jurors from an urban environment will not think the same as jurors from a rural area. I wish them luck.

 

[jmorris]

I think a great example is legal marijuana in some states. Its not up to them to police what you do with it. The individual persons onus is on them returning to his/her state, where illegal.

I don’t think that is a good example, because marijuana is still illegal at the Federal level.

Here we are talking about something legal at the State and Federal level sold legally. Closer to suing a casino in Nevada because you lost your money and it’s illegal to gamble in your State.

 

[GEM]

They might lose but Academy might throw them a few bucks anyway. Not an unknown practice to stop appeals. Ruger did that with a SAA drop case that they won.

 

[The Liberal]

Although I am sympathetic and I don’t think Academy should sell assault weapons, I don’t see any legal responsibility for Academy. They did their due diligence and were told it was acceptable to sell the weapon based upon the data available. I don’t see grounds for a suit. I do think Academy ought to reconsider their selling of such weapons though.

 

[sevt_chevelle]

Although I am sympathetic and I don’t think Academy should sell assault weapons

They dont. They sell semi automatic rifles, big difference.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Although I am sympathetic and I don’t think Academy should sell assault weapons, I don’t see any legal responsibility for Academy. They did their due diligence and were told it was acceptable to sell the weapon based upon the data available. I don’t see grounds for a suit. I do think Academy ought to reconsider their selling of such weapons though.

What should Academy sell?

 

[chicharrones]

What should Academy sell?

<sarcasm> High capacity fishing reels with tactical fishing rods and urban assault canoes. </sarcasm>

 

[George Dickel]

Although I am sympathetic and I don’t think Academy should sell assault weapons, I don’t see any legal responsibility for Academy. They did their due diligence and were told it was acceptable to sell the weapon based upon the data available. I don’t see grounds for a suit. I do think Academy ought to reconsider their selling of such weapons though.

Define "assault weapon".

 

[WestTexShooter]

Unfortunately the plaintiff is going to lose this one, if the argument is specifically about the magazine. Grief is a powerful motivator, but he's pointing it in the wrong direction. Academy broke no law in selling that person a magazine. Truthfully, that person broke no law in purchasing the magazine.

Why would it be “unfortunate” for the plaintiff to lose this?

 

[WestTexShooter]

Although I am sympathetic and I don’t think Academy should sell assault weapons, I don’t see any legal responsibility for Academy. They did their due diligence and were told it was acceptable to sell the weapon based upon the data available. I don’t see grounds for a suit. I do think Academy ought to reconsider their selling of such weapons though.

What!?

 

[Texas10mm]

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

Why would it be “unfortunate” for the plaintiff to lose this?

Unfortunate for the plaintiff because he will not receive whatever he is looking for. Don’t read too much into it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So it's legal for him to buy the rifle, and legal for him to buy, and use, the magazine in Texas.

The thing was, it wasn't legal for him to purchase the rifle. While in the Air Force, the shooter had a domestic violence conviction that should have kept him from being able to purchase the rifle, only the Air Force failed to report the incident properly (to NCIC) and the shooter never made it into the database. His name was not flagged when he attempted to make the purchase and so the purchase went through at no fault of Academy.

 

[Elkins45]

Although I am sympathetic and I don’t think Academy should sell assault weapons, I don’t see any legal responsibility for Academy. They did their due diligence and were told it was acceptable to sell the weapon based upon the data available. I don’t see grounds for a suit. I do think Academy ought to reconsider their selling of such weapons though.

All weapons are "assault weapons." Assault is a verb, not a noun.