Texas judge says Sutherland Springs families can sue store that sold church shooter his gun, ammunit

[Arcangl86]

See above. Why they are suing for magazines is puzzling. By the Lautenberg Act he should not have been able to buy fire arms at all in 2016.

My understanding is that the Air Force never properly filed his domestic assault conviction, so there is no violation of the Lautenberg Act, or even a lack of due diligence. This might be the only plausible cause of action they could find.

 

[RDKirk]

Aren’t these stores supposed to do background checks ? If it’s illegal to own in Colorado then ...

They don't do background checks on accessories.

To be remembered: Allowing a case does not at all indicate how the case may go. The fact is, judges judge cases. Judges like to judge cases. That's why they become judges.

If a judge can be convinced that a particular legal question hasn't already been sufficiently adjudicated, the judge is likely to let it go to trial...because judges like trials. Trials are what they do. They became judges to do trials. Judges are inclined to say, "yes" to a trial because they get paid for doing trials. They don't get paid for not doing trials.

And this is an interesting question, particularly in Texas that still has wet and dry counties, so there is a precedent for considering such things as what is legal where a person lives and where a person is.

 

[redleghunter]

My understanding is that the Air Force never properly filed his domestic assault conviction, so there is no violation of the Lautenberg Act, or even a lack of due diligence. This might be the only plausible cause of action they could find.

Agree. People have sued the federal government and DoD before. This was gross negligence on the part of the Air Force.

 

[Rescued One]

At the heart of the case is whether the federal definition of a firearm includes the magazine with which it is sold, and if a Colorado law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Coloradans who buy guns in Texas.


"...if a Colorado law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Coloradans who buy guns in Texas."

This is my question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Agree. But the WashPo article said he lived with his parents in Texas.

Hopefully it'll all come to light soon enough.

 

[DamianWarS]

Texas judge says Sutherland Springs families can sue store that sold church shooter his gun, ammunition

Updated Monday, Feb. 4, 2019 at 10:35 a.m. with the judge's decision and more information about a federal lawsuit, and Friday, Feb. 1, 2019 at 5:26 p.m. with photos from the hearing.

SAN ANTONIO — A Texas judge has decided that victims and families of the Sutherland Springs church massacre can sue the sporting goods store where the shooter purchased his gun and ammunition.

In a case that could have big implications for gun laws here and across the country, Bexar County District Court Judge Karen Pozza on Monday denied Academy Sports + Outdoors request that the lawsuit be thrown out. Her decision means the lawsuit will proceed and could eventually go to a jury trial.

Pozza's order on summary judgment did not explain her decision.

The Sutherland Springs families allege the chain is liable for shooter Devin P. Kelley's carnage because employees at one of its Texas retailers sold him a high capacity magazine illegal in Colorado, his state of residence. The families are asking for millions in damages for physical and mental anguish, disfigurement and medical expenses.

The lawsuit could test the limits of state and federal gun laws and may answer some long-standing, hotly contested legal questions, like whether gun dealers must decline to sell certain items based on the buyer's place of residence and whether shooting victims can file civil suits, and get monetary damages, from these dealers in certain circumstances.

Lawyers for both sides went head-to-head in what was at times a heated debate on Thursday. During the nearly three-hour hearing, they argued over federal and state laws, and whether the store should have refused to sell Kelley the gun with which he killed and injured dozens at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs on Nov. 5, 2017.

At the heart of the case is whether the federal definition of a firearm includes the magazine with which it is sold, and if a Colorado law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Coloradans who buy guns in Texas.

More at link: Texas judge says Sutherland Springs families can sue store that sold church shooter his gun, ammunition | Courts | Dallas News

why not sue the state of texas while they're at it

 

[chilehed]

At the heart of the case is whether the federal definition of a firearm includes the magazine with which it is sold, ...

It most certainly does not. The firearm is the component which includes the receiver.

and if a Colorado law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Coloradans who buy guns in Texas.

It most certainly does not.

This case is patently absurd, and the judge was an idiot for allowing it to go forward.

There is no such rule/background check for buying gas.

Nor does one do a gun purchase background check for someone who isn't buying a gun.

 

[RDKirk]

It most certainly does not. The firearm is the component which includes the receiver.

It most certainly does not.

This case is patently absurd, and the judge was an idiot for allowing it to go forward.

Nor does one do a gun purchase background check for someone who isn't buying a gun.

No, the judge was not an idiot. You're demanding that the judge make a judgment before hearing the arguments. The question is not whether a background check was done. The question involves how far a state's legal jurisdiction controls its residents--and the issue isn't about guns alone. We may think we know that answer, and we may be right, but if the answer hasn't actually been given court precedent, then there isn't actually a legal answer to the question.

I think the weak part of this case is the fact that the magazine was bought in Texas and the crime was committed in Texas. But that will come out in court.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Texas judge says Sutherland Springs families can sue store that sold church shooter his gun, ammunition

Updated Monday, Feb. 4, 2019 at 10:35 a.m. with the judge's decision and more information about a federal lawsuit, and Friday, Feb. 1, 2019 at 5:26 p.m. with photos from the hearing.

SAN ANTONIO — A Texas judge has decided that victims and families of the Sutherland Springs church massacre can sue the sporting goods store where the shooter purchased his gun and ammunition.

In a case that could have big implications for gun laws here and across the country, Bexar County District Court Judge Karen Pozza on Monday denied Academy Sports + Outdoors request that the lawsuit be thrown out. Her decision means the lawsuit will proceed and could eventually go to a jury trial.

Pozza's order on summary judgment did not explain her decision.

The Sutherland Springs families allege the chain is liable for shooter Devin P. Kelley's carnage because employees at one of its Texas retailers sold him a high capacity magazine illegal in Colorado, his state of residence. The families are asking for millions in damages for physical and mental anguish, disfigurement and medical expenses.

The lawsuit could test the limits of state and federal gun laws and may answer some long-standing, hotly contested legal questions, like whether gun dealers must decline to sell certain items based on the buyer's place of residence and whether shooting victims can file civil suits, and get monetary damages, from these dealers in certain circumstances.

Lawyers for both sides went head-to-head in what was at times a heated debate on Thursday. During the nearly three-hour hearing, they argued over federal and state laws, and whether the store should have refused to sell Kelley the gun with which he killed and injured dozens at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs on Nov. 5, 2017.

At the heart of the case is whether the federal definition of a firearm includes the magazine with which it is sold, and if a Colorado law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Coloradans who buy guns in Texas.

More at link: Texas judge says Sutherland Springs families can sue store that sold church shooter his gun, ammunition | Courts | Dallas News

I’m not sure that suing would be the Christian thing to do.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not the same thing.

There were rules in place here, and those rules, in order to protect the people they were made for, need to be followed....they were not.

There is no such rule/background check for buying gas.

Personally I think it’s nothing more than a technicality. The store was not responsible for the attack for selling a magazine that is illegal in his state but is legal in Texas. Perhaps the store did make a mistake but the attack was not the result of their mistake. Personally if I were one of the victims I wouldn’t sue.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The real issue is this guy was a bad Airman was court-martialed for a violent offense. That should have disqualified him. The Lautenberg Act.

NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas — The gunman suspected of opening fire at this town’s First Baptist Church Sunday was a former U.S. Air Force airman who had a string of legal troubles beginning in at least 2012, when he was court-martialed and sentenced to a year in military prison for assaulting his wife and child.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...say-killed-churchgoers-in-sutherland-springs/

More on Lautenberg Act:

Domestic Abusers Are Barred From Gun Ownership, but Often Escape the Law

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON — In 1996, after a concerted push from Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Congress made it illegal for anyone convicted of domestic abuse — even a misdemeanor — to buy a firearm. Mr. Lautenberg, who died in 2013, liked to say the law was “dedicated to the simple principle that wife-beaters and child abusers should not have guns.”

Yet in the two decades since, a large percentage of the perpetrators of mass shootings and other violent crimes have had run-ins with the law over spousal abuse — and have had little problem acquiring deadly arsenals. On Sunday, Devin P. Kelley joined that fraternity, gunning down 26 people at a church in Texas with an AR-15 military-style rifle that he bought two years after the Air Force convicted him of beating his wife and breaking his young stepson’s skull.

The Air Force on Monday acknowledged that Mr. Kelley’s domestic violence offense, clearly one that should have made him ineligible for a firearm, had not been entered into the National Criminal Information Center database. It pledged to conduct a sweeping review of all cases to determine if they had been properly reported.

The application to purchase a firearm does as if you’ve ever been convicted of domestic abuse. I just filled one out 2 weeks ago.

 

[paul1149]

[and if a Colorado law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to Coloradans who buy guns in Texas.]​

It most certainly does not.

I would tend to agree. This would be an unworkable imposition on the states and territories that would drive each of them down to the most restrictive position among all of them, and that's an unconstitutional exercise of de facto federalism. This would apply not only to gun sales, but to law governing all kinds of activities. I suspect the antagonists would like to bump this up to the federal level to see if they can make an incursion on this very point, similar to the judicial activism of Roe v. Wade capriciously nationalizing abortion law in 1973. But that would be gravy, as they realize their chances are nearly nil with the present supreme court. But win or lose in that regard, behind it all lies an effort to intimidate and oppress the gun shops to go out of business, and there their chances of success are much higher.

 

[Hank77]

Not the same thing.

There were rules in place here, and those rules, in order to protect the people they were made for, need to be followed....they were not.

There is no such rule/background check for buying gas.

What law wasn't followed?

 

[Hank77]

No reason to believe he was licensed in any other state than the one he resided in...none that I know of anyway.

You don't have to be licensed to own a gun in Colorado, except for concealed carry.

 

[NW82]

This is really ridiculous. Tighter guns laws have done nothing to stop gun violence, Chicago and D.C. are proof of this. Gun homicides in Chicago rose by 61 percent between 2015 and 2016. That helped make the gun homicide rate in Chicago particularly huge compared to other similar cities. The rate was 25.1 per 100,000 residents in 2016, compared to 14.7 in Philadelphia and just 2.3 in New York. This is just another judge pushing the agenda from the bench. If the store followed all laws then they did nothing wrong. If they didn't then the ATF should be involved, not families looking for money.

 

[Darkhorse]

This case is patently absurd, and the judge was an idiot for allowing it to go forward.

Lawyer joke:

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
"Your Honor"

(I heard that from a lawyer)

 

[Arcangl86]

This is really ridiculous. Tighter guns laws have done nothing to stop gun violence, Chicago and D.C. are proof of this. Gun homicides in Chicago rose by 61 percent between 2015 and 2016. That helped make the gun homicide rate in Chicago particularly huge compared to other similar cities. The rate was 25.1 per 100,000 residents in 2016, compared to 14.7 in Philadelphia and just 2.3 in New York. This is just another judge pushing the agenda from the bench. If the store followed all laws then they did nothing wrong. If they didn't then the ATF should be involved, not families looking for money.

I really wish people would stop bringing up Chicago, because it completely ignores the fact that Indiana borders the city. Most of the guns used in crimes in Chicago come from other states.

 

[Hank77]

I really wish people would stop bringing up Chicago, because it completely ignores the fact that Indiana borders the city. Most of the guns used in crimes in Chicago come from other states.

I agree, or are illegally purchased on the street.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What law wasn't followed?

We evidently don't know. I guess i assumed the judge ruled as he did because a law was broken.

I took a stab at what law in post #12

 

[NW82]

I really wish people would stop bringing up Chicago, because it completely ignores the fact that Indiana borders the city. Most of the guns used in crimes in Chicago come from other states.

But the laws in Chicago should stop those guns, yes? My point is they don't. The statistics don't lie. You can pass 100 new laws and...news flash, criminals don't follow laws currently on the books, so there is no evidentiary data to show they will follow new ones. But to the OP point, this judge isn't basing a decision based in law but rather emotion.