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

[Arcangl86]

Part of the job is to declare summary judgement in cases that have no merit. There is nothing in American jurisprudence that allows for the idea that a state has jurisdiction over actions made in a different state, by people who are residents of that different state, in conformity with the laws of that different state.

There is also nothing in American jurisprudence that allows for the idea that residents of a State are its subjects, such that they are necessarily bound to observe the laws of that State even when they have left it.

Yes, the judge was most certainly an idiot.

The law that applies here is 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3).

 

[chilehed]

The law that applies here is 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3).

It does not. Magazines are not firearms.

 

[RDKirk]

It does not. Magazines are not firearms.

That's one of the things the case will point out.

 

[chilehed]

That's one of the things the case will point out.

Would have been done already if the judge had attended to his job rather than allow a frivolous suit to move forward

 

[Arcangl86]

Would have been done already if the judge had attended to his job rather than allow a frivolous suit to move forward

And you base your claim that this is a frivolous suit based on years of legal experience correct?

 

[chilehed]

And you base your claim that this is a frivolous suit based on years of legal experience correct?

It's not a claim, it's a fact. The suit is based on the lunatic notions that something that is manifestly not a firearm is a firearm, and that a resident of Texas acting within Texas in accord with both Texas and Federal law can be found liable for someone else not observing the laws of Colorado.

You don't need a law degree to know that that's stupid and frivolous.

 

[Arcangl86]

It's not a claim, it's a fact. The suit is based on the lunatic notions that something that is manifestly not a firearm is a firearm, and that a resident of Texas acting within Texas in accord with both Texas and Federal law can be found liable for someone else not observing the laws of Colorado.

You don't need a law degree to know that that's stupid and frivolous.

The suit is based on the notion that a rifle is useless without a magazine, and that magazines larger then 15 rounds are against Colorado law. So even though they are legal in Texas, they are not legal in Colorado and federal law requires both. It's a question of statutory interpretation, and like many cases of first instance, there is a good faith argument that could be made either way.

 

[chilehed]

The suit is based on the notion that a rifle is useless without a magazine,

That doesn't mean that magazines are thus firearms.

and that magazines larger then 15 rounds are against Colorado law.

Texas is not Colorado.

So even though they are legal in Texas, they are not legal in Colorado and federal law requires both.

This sentence is meaningless.

It's a question of statutory interpretation,

It’s a question of attempting to interpret the statutes as saying what they manifestly do not say.

there is a good faith argument that could be made either way.

You have a very strange idea of what “good faith” means.

 

[Arcangl86]

That doesn't mean that magazines are thus firearms.

Texas is not Colorado.

This sentence is meaningless.

It’s a question of attempting to interpret the statutes as saying what they manifestly do not say.

You have a very strange idea of what “good faith” means.

Federal law states that to sell a rifle to somebody it must be legal in both the state it is being sold in, in this case Texas, and the state of residence of the person making the purchase, in this case Colorado. The rifle he bought was designed to use a 30 round magazine which is illegal under Colorado law, and thus in this case under federal law.

 

[Iona Wearyall]

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

Has anyone seen and read the petition and response(s) for this action? What, exactly, is stated in the petition as the "claim upon which relief may be granted"? The petition must cite a specific Texas law authorizing the judge to provide the relief allowed by the statute, for the illegal action alleged. I'm just a layman without a law degree, and even I know that much. So, do we have a twisted application of Texas law going on here, that may not survive all the way to the Texas Supreme Court? But even if it does, it is highly unlikely that it will survive the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That is, unless it can be proven that the Texas store that sold the apparatus did not follow all applicable Texas laws in doing so. That's the only basis I can think of, right off hand, why any judge--if they take their role as District Judge seriously and soberly--would rule against a Summary Judgment for dismissal: the store did not follow existing Texas law properly before completing the transaction. Can anyone post the link to the full set of court documents?

 

[Arcangl86]

Has anyone seen and read the petition and response(s) for this action? What, exactly, is stated in the petition as the "claim upon which relief may be granted"? The petition must cite a specific Texas law authorizing the judge to provide the relief allowed by the statute, for the illegal action alleged. I'm just a layman without a law degree, and even I know that much. So, do we have a twisted application of Texas law going on here, that may not survive all the way to the Texas Supreme Court? But even if it does, it is highly unlikely that it will survive the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That is, unless it can be proven that the Texas store that sold the apparatus did not follow all applicable Texas laws in doing so. That's the only basis I can think of, right off hand, why any judge--if they take their role as District Judge seriously and soberly--would rule against a Summary Judgment for dismissal: the store did not follow existing Texas law properly before completing the transaction. Can anyone post the link to the full set of court documents?

All I've been able to find so far was the original petition, which relies on a common law claim of negligence. Still looking for the briefs in relation to the motion for summary judgement, but not having much luck. Ward Family vs Academy Sports + Outdoors | Negligence | Damages

 

[chilehed]

Federal law states that to sell a rifle to somebody it must be legal in both the state it is being sold in, in this case Texas, and the state of residence of the person making the purchase, in this case Colorado. The rifle he bought was designed to use a 30 round magazine which is illegal under Colorado law, and thus in this case under federal law.

By law, the firearm is the component that incorporates the receiver. The law does not, and never has, held that a firearm is not a firearm absent ammunition and accessories, and in fact that idea absolutely contradicts both the law as written and judicial precedent.

The firearm he bought in Texas is legal to buy in Colorado. The idea that a retailer in one state is required to verify the legality of accessories in a different state, in order to sell them to an out of state resident, is a complete fabrication.

 

[Arcangl86]

By law, the firearm is the component that incorporates the receiver. The law does not, and never has, held that a firearm is not a firearm absent ammunition and accessories, and in fact that idea absolutely contradicts both the law as written and judicial precedent.

The firearm he bought in Texas is legal to buy in Colorado. The idea that a retailer in one state is required to verify the legality of accessories in a different state, in order to sell them to an out of state resident, is a complete fabrication.

I trust you can back that up then with appropriate authorities. Since you apparently know more about Texas law then a member of the Texas bar who also happens to be a judge.

 

[chilehed]

I trust you can back that up then with appropriate authorities.

You mean like 18 U.S. Code § 921.(a) (3)

The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.​

Yeah, I can.

Since you apparently know more about Texas law then a member of the Texas bar who also happens to be a judge.

Apparently so. It's not the first time I've known more about the law than a lawyer or a judge, and it's sad.