Academy

[44 AMP]

That's pretty much the way I understood it, thanks GAD.

If I'm getting it right, it seems that the GOVT is saying that since the rifle was sold with a nonCO compliant mag that sale violated the Federal requirement for sales to comply with both the state laws where sold and where the buyer resides. And, therefore was an illegal sale, which therefore makes Academy responsible for what the killer did with the rifle.

That argument completely ignores the fact that the store did the required Fed background check and the government APPROVED THE SALE, to someone who should have been a prohibited person.

As I see it, had the govt not screwed up, and approved the sale, Academy would not, and could not have made the sale, with or without a non-CO compliant magazine as part of the sale.

Seems like the Govt is saying "our screw up telling you it was ok to sell a gun to that guy doesn't matter, YOU have to pay the damages for what he did, because you included a non-CO compliant magazine..."

I think that argument is on pretty thin ice, and one MORE drop of chicken spit would crack it to pieces...

On the other hand, I'm not making the ruling, and I'm not on the jury, so I'm not holding my breath waiting for common sense to prevail.

 

[KyJim]

I am also a lawyer and would love to see a case holding that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is implicated where a seller in state A sells a product legal in state A to a resident of state B while physically in state A. That is different than selling a product regulated by federal law. In the Academy case, if 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3) it is not unlawful under the statue for the resident of state B to buy over the counter in state A. It is unlawful for the buyer to bring it into state B. I have not looked at the reg but would seriously doubt the constitutionality of it if it purports to go beyond the statute.

Note: corrected two posts down.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I think you're overlooking something, KyJim:

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
...
(2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance;
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

It's not as simple as just the buyer in Texas isn't allowed to take the gun back to Colorado. The law clearly says that the sale must comply with the laws of both states. And what's going to hamstring Academy is that the law also specifically says that the dealer "is presumed" to to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States.

This is not a full faith and credit issue, nor is it an issue of Colorado trying to enforce their laws outside of Colorado. This is the federal government, presumably under the authority of the interstate commerce clause, requiring that the Colorado law applies in Texas.

 

[KyJim]

AB-- You are absolutely correct. I made a rookie mistake and looked quickly on my iPhone at one section and not the entire statute. That said, it is not illegal because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It is illegal under the statute which is authorized under the Commerce Clause.