[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Here's the 4th Circuit ruling.

The decision is phrased in a confusing way. The Court of Appeals notes that the federal government isn't immune under " the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). ..[and]... the Brady Act’s immunity provision, 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(6)."

The government is immune from suit for execution of inherently governmental functions unless it specifically waived immunity and consented to be sued. The Court of Appeals isn't holding that the government fails to set forth an immunity claim under those codes sections. Rather, those codes sections include a framework that explicitly waives immunity and consents to suit.

I don't see how this works out for the plaintiffs. If an intervening criminal act of a third party doesn't insulate the government from liability, we can stop complaining about the surplus of lawyers.

The first part of the code is an exception to a jurisdictional part of the code,

(a)Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.

The second just looks as if it doesn't apply.

(6)Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—
(A)for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B)for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.