Firearms Dealer Getting Sued

[steve4102]

Academy Sports is being sued by the victims of the Sutherland Springs church shooting.

The lawsuit says that Academy Sports in TX illegally sold the shooter a Ruger AR-556, because he was a Colorado resident and CO had a ban on High Cap Assault Rifles.

"At the time the mass shooter illegally purchased the High Capacity Ruger AR-556 model 8500 at Academy in Texas, he reported a Colorado Springs, Colorado address on his Firearms Transaction Record, Form 4473. He presented Defendant Academy with a state-issued ID that reflected a matching state residence. This fact alone legally disqualified the mass shooter from purchasing the Ruger AR-556 model 8500 firearm," the lawsuit says.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...recip=27116010


This seems like a stretch to me, but I'm not a lawyer and up on all the State-to-State laws.

What say you?

[zukiphile]

Two things strike me as wrong about this, but maybe I'm wrong and this will prompt a correction.

I understood CO to have banned standard capacity magazines produced after a certain date, but did not understand CO to have banned ARs. Am I wrong?

What struck me as more odd was that a TX FFL was selling to a purported CO resident. I thought only a resident of the FFL's state could purchase from an FFL. Is that wrong too?

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Two things strike me as wrong about this, but maybe I'm wrong and this will prompt a correction.

I understood CO to have banned standard capacity magazines produced after a certain date, but did not understand CO to have banned ARs. Am I wrong?

What struck me as more odd was that a TX FFL was selling to a purported CO resident. I thought only a resident of the FFL's state could purchase from an FFL. Is that wrong too?

After July 1, 2013, magazines holding more than 15 rounds may not be sold, transferred, or possessed unless they were lawfully owned prior to July 1, 2013. Firearms with a tubular magazine which are either chambered in .22 rimfire or operated by lever action are exempt from this regulation, as are magazines "permanently altered" to limit the capacity to 15 or less

Colorado law..no state assault weapons ban.

No permit is necessary for the purchase of rifles, shotguns, ammunition, or any firearm component in the state. The only qualifications pertinent to the purchase of firearms set by Texas gun laws is that the purchaser be at least 18 years of age and a resident of the state.

[Aguila Blanca]

I was certain that we had discussed this previously, but I can't find it so I guess not.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Can you provide a citation or link to where this is established in Texas law? I just spent some time cruising through the Texas statute on firearms and I don't see such a provision.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D.../htm/PE.46.htm

Considering that Texas state law specifically states that Texas residents may purchase firearms in other states unless prohibited by law, it would appear on its face to be exceptionally inconsistent to prohibit residents of other states from purchasing firearms in Texas.

[USNRet93]

Can you provide a citation or link to where this is established in Texas law? I just spent some time cruising through the Texas statute on firearms and I don't see such a provision.

Well, I can't find it now but

Q: What is required to purchase a firearm in the state of Texas?
A: You will need a valid state-issued ID. Many FFLs will not sell to out-of-state residents. This is due to the FFL’s requirement to uphold your resident state’s gun laws, and the inherent complexity associated with many states.

https://www.texasgunlaws.org/

Found it

https://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/texas-gun-laws

[5whiskey]

A brief survey of the applicable laws tells me that this is going no where. There is no prohibition on an FFL selling to an out-of-state resident so long as the sales comply with both state's laws. There is no law regarding AR15 possession of ownership in Colorado. There is a magazine limit of 15 rounds... but still not an AR15 ban.

The law suit is much more appropriately directed at the Air Force who failed to report the Shooter's prohibited person status to NICS, IMO.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

https://www.texasgunlaws.org/

Found it

https://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/texas-gun-laws

This implies that there is no TX law or FFL reg prohibiting sale of a rifle by a licensee to the resident of another state.

While my link below isn't the actual code, it is part of an ATF FAQ.

May a licensee sell a firearm to a nonlicensee who is a resident of another State?

Generally, a firearm may not lawfully be sold by a licensee to a nonlicensee who resides in a State other than the State in which the seller’s licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensee whose business is in the purchaser’s State of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the licensee in his or her State of residence. In addition, a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the State where the licensee’s business premises is located in an over–the–counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with State law in the State where the licensee is located and in the State where the purchaser resides.
[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3); 27 CFR 478.99(a)]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-...-another-state

[FITASC]

It is not against FEDERAL law to sell a longgun to an out of state resident (assuming he passes background). State laws are a maze of differences.

[USNRet93]

The only qualifications pertinent to the purchase of firearms set by Texas gun laws is that the purchaser be at least 18 years of age and a resident of the state.

This implies that there is no TX law or FFL reg prohibiting sale of a rifle by a licensee to the resident of another state.

I guess...just 'assumed' a web site called the below would know..guess not(?)

https://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/texas-gun-laws

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

I guess...just 'assumed' a web site called the below would know..guess not(?)

Summaries, especially summaries written for laymen, may omit the sort of detail the makes them reliable in favor of communicating a simple theme. I'm running the same kind of risk above in using an ATF summary. When I had an FFL client, I think I advised him that it is just simpler not to deal directly with out of state residents.


It's hard to see the merit in this suit as described.

[BobCat45]

Read an article in which the claim was made that the magazine is an essential part of the rifle, that particular magazine was over the Colorado limit, hence the rifle could not be sold to a Colorado resident since the laws of both states were not followed.

I am so far from my area of expertise that posting this is probably a terrible mistake; just relaying what I understood from an article I can't find again right now.

[riffraff]

For sure - it's OK for an FFL to sell to a resident of another state, it happens all the time between NH and Maine (who also have very similar state laws)..

What I'm unclear about is what forces an FFL in one state to follow the laws of another state - ie resident of commie state A goes to free state B, and is breaking no law in state B if they possess a firearm there that is legal in state B but illegal in state A..

In practice though, what I've seen is even when purchasing ammunition the stores attempt to enforce each others laws (not sure if that is the law or a practice, and who's laws if it is a law).

Maybe someone can clarify this but I have wondered if the states just try to enforce each others laws out of respect, or if it's really a federal law?

There are situations where some of these things really do not make sense - for instance if a resident of MA (everything is illegal) owns a second home in NH, as far as I know there would be no legal problem with them owning a new AR15 provided they keep it in NH... however they have no way to obtain such without bending some law is my understanding of how it works since a new AR15 is not MA compliant.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Found it

https://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/texas-gun-laws

That's an article setting forth some non-lawyer's view, not a citation of a law. Did you read the comments?

Curtis Stone
"The only qualifications pertinent to the purchase of firearms set by Texas gun laws is that the purchaser be at least 18 years of age and a resident of the state. "

I do not believe this is accurate. After reviewing the ATF publication "Texas Statutes and Codes" I can find no provision that prohibits someone not a resident of Texas from purchasing a long gun.

Federal law prohibits the sale of handguns to non state residents, but not long guns.

Please cite the Statute and section of Texas law that prohibits the sale of firearms to residents of another state.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BobCat45

Read an article in which the claim was made that the magazine is an essential part of the rifle, that particular magazine was over the Colorado limit, hence the rifle could not be sold to a Colorado resident since the laws of both states were not followed.

I am so far from my area of expertise that posting this is probably a terrible mistake; just relaying what I understood from an article I can't find again right now.

Your understanding matches what I have gotten from other articles about the lawsuit. That does appear to be a key point of the plaintiff's claim: that because the firearm came with a magazine larger than allowed under Colorado law, the entire sale of the firearm was unlawful under Colorado law. That implies that the magazine is an integral part of the firearm, which will be interesting to see played out in court. Obviously, there are any number of firearms (both long guns and handguns) that normally have magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds and which are also available in "California" or "post-ban" configurations that include 10-round magazines. Personally, I think trying to include a detachable magazine as an integral part of the gun in order to argue that the sale was unlawful is a huge stretch, but I can certainly see an anti-gun jury or judge buying into that.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by riffraff

For sure - it's OK for an FFL to sell to a resident of another state, it happens all the time between NH and Maine (who also have very similar state laws)..

What I'm unclear about is what forces an FFL in one state to follow the laws of another state - ie resident of commie state A goes to free state B, and is breaking no law in state B if they possess a firearm there that is legal in state B but illegal in state A..

There's a difference between possessing and buying. As has already been noted, federal law prohibits the sale transfer of handguns to people who are not residents of the state where the sale is made, and also stipulates that sales of long guns must be lawful under the laws of both the seller's and buyer's states. So the answer to your question is: federal law.

[steve4102]

As has already been noted, federal law prohibits the sale of handguns too people who are not residents of the state where the sale is made,

Don'y think this is entirely accurate.

It is my understanding that it is legal under Federal law to sell a handgun to an out of state resident. The out of state buyer cannot take possession of his/her newly purchased handgun as it must be shipped to an FFL in the buyers Home state where the transfer will be completed.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Steve4102

It is my understanding that it is legal under Federal law to sell a handgun to an out of state resident. The out of state buyer cannot take possession of his/her newly purchased handgun as it must be shipped to an FFL in the buyers Home state where the transfer will be completed.

You are correct, and I fell into the trap of oversimplifying to save time/space. My comment conflated purchase and transfer.

As it applies to the case under discussion, that's a moot point. The Sutherland Springs shooter was a Colorado resident (or, at least, that's what his documents said) and he purchased the AR-15 in Texas. The issue of whether he would have had to have a handgun shipped to an FFL in Colorado before he could take possession is irrelevant.

[TomNJVA]

Originally Posted by Zukiphile

"a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the State where the licensee’s business premises is located in an over–the–counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with State law in the State where the licensee is located and in the State where the purchaser resides."

This raises a question. Let's say a purchaser lives in State A which requires a Firearm Identification Card to purchase a firearm in that state. The purchaser does not have such a card, so he goes to State B which does not have that requirement and purchases a long gun. The long gun itself is legal to purchase and possess in both States A & B, but our purchaser could not purchase it in his home State A because he lacked the necessary Firearm Identification Card.

So does this sale comply with the laws of both states? Since the Firearm Identification Card is only a requirement when the purchase is made in State A, and the purchase was made in State B, it would appear to me the ID card is irrelevant. That said, it is part of the law for purchasing in State A. I imagine this happens frequently.

[5whiskey]

This raises a question. Let's say a purchaser lives in State A which requires a Firearm Identification Card to purchase a firearm in that state. The purchaser does not have such a card, so he goes to State B which does not have that requirement and purchases a long gun. The long gun itself is legal to purchase and possess in both States A & B, but our purchaser could not purchase it in his home State A because he lacked the necessary Firearm Identification Card.

So does this sale comply with the laws of both states? Since the Firearm Identification Card is only a requirement when the purchase is made in State A, and the purchase was made in State B, it would appear to me the ID card is irrelevant. That said, it is part of the law for purchasing in State A. I imagine this happens frequently.

Thorny question. In the specific example, it would take an attorney fluent in the laws of both state A and state B to give a definitive answer, and the devil is in the details of the specific statutes of each state. Statutes which can go on for pages and pages, with many other pages of case law clarifying the statutes also being required reading. It's questions like this that leads even very knowledgeable attorneys to do the following...

When I had an FFL client, I think I advised him that it is just simpler not to deal directly with out of state residents.

Because even the most skilled attorney on earth does not know every nitpick detail of every firearms law in every state.

[zukiphile]

TomNJVA, great question.

Originally Posted by 5W

Because even the most skilled attorney on earth does not know every nitpick detail of every firearms law in every state.

No sane client is going to call his lawyer for an opinion on each individual transfer. The client wants an answer to the question "What rule can I follow so I never have a problem with my license?"

This is something like the straw purchaser issue. It may not be realistic for the counter staff at the store to know what a straw purchase really is, but a simple rule that the customer should look like he is buying for himself and pay for it himself, while it will forego some legitimate transactions by true buyers, will also avoid headaches with the licensing agency.

Plainly, I either never knew or forgot long ago that a long gun can be sold to a non-resident, but simplified rules that keep a client safe are sometimes the better (because more readily understood and usable) advice, even if it is wrong.

[Mongo_Bongo]

Very simple. Shyster lawyer, a redundancy, is looking for deep pockets for a payout.

[44 AMP]

So does this sale comply with the laws of both states? Since the Firearm Identification Card is only a requirement when the purchase is made in State A, and the purchase was made in State B, it would appear to me the ID card is irrelevant.

This is a kind of general question that needs specifics to answer. State A requiring a permit (FOID, ID card, some kind of approval to purchase) is only PART of State A's laws.

More info on State A's laws is needed to know if the out of state purchase would violate any laws when the gun "returns home" with the buyer.

Is there a state that requires a purchase permit (Firearm ID card) to buy, but does NOT require an FOID to possess???

Ok, the guy doesn't have his home state's required permit to purchase, so he buys out of state. Then what?? The out of state purchase doesn't violate State A's purchase law, because it didn't happen in State A. SO, in that regard, and that regard ONLY, the purchase is compliant with both states laws.

Another point to look at, is the "legal to own" concept. Depending on specific wording in various laws, it might be the applicable factor. Buying out of state might not violate the law, but owning (possessing) it in state, MIGHT. A court may look at a very narrow set of laws, or it may look at the bigger picture, and there's no way to know until you get to court.

It is entirely possible such a case might be ruled to have upheld the letter of the law, but violated the spirit / intent of the law.