TX: Sutherland Springs church 26 dead 20 injured in mass shooting

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-court-rule ... 45153.html

TSC rules Academy not liable.

Article says murderer took his own life.

Fails to mention part of hero gun owner with AR15.

[K.Mooneyham]

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-court-rule ... 45153.html

TSC rules Academy not liable.

Article says murderer took his own life.

Fails to mention part of hero gun owner with AR15.

Texas Supreme Court ruled this correctly, IMHO (IANAL). The violent perpetrator would have been denied the sale of the firearm itself had USAF personnel done their job and entered the information into NICS. The gun-grabbers love to say "there should be a law", but there are laws. However, the laws cannot work if the system doesn't have the correct information in it.

[RoyGBiv]

When a drunk driver kills someone, does anyone consider, even for an instant, that Ford is liable?

[Liberty]

The suit was about Academy selling a gun equipped with a 30 round mag. He bought the gun in Texas. But had a Colorado drivers license. 30 round mags are illegal in Colorado. I guess Academy was supposed to know that. He also bought some extra mags.but no ID is required for them.

[Chemist45]

Liberty wrote

The suit was about Academy selling a gun equipped with a 30 round mag. He bought the gun in Texas. But had a Colorado drivers license. 30 round mags are illegal in Colorado. I guess Academy was supposed to know that. He also bought some extra mags.but no ID is required for them.

Magazine bans are stupid and unenforceable.
In a free state, like Texas, a 12 year old can buy magazines. They are unregulated and are not serialized. No ID is required to buy them.
Anyone can buy them and take them to a state that bans them.
If the banning state makes the ban retroactive, they have engaged in an unlawful taking.
If they "Grandfather" existing magazines, how do they know when a magazine was made? Without serial numbers there is no way of knowing.
Unless the magazine is of a unique design that came after the ban, there is no way to know when a mag is made.

[rtschl]

Federal Judge finds US Air Force is 60% responsible for church shooting at Sutherland Springs by failing to enter his information that would have been flagged in a NICS background check.

"Moreover, the evidence shows that — had the Government done its job and properly reported Kelley’s information into the background check system — it is more likely than not that Kelley would have been deterred from carrying out the Church shooting."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... oting-at-a

[Paladin]

Federal Judge finds US Air Force is 60% responsible for church shooting at Sutherland Springs by failing to enter his information that would have been flagged in a NICS background check.

"Moreover, the evidence shows that — had the Government done its job and properly reported Kelley’s information into the background check system — it is more likely than not that Kelley would have been deterred from carrying out the Church shooting."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... oting-at-a

Now if we can just get the FBI to turn over all the docs regarding their "Tear up Texas" terrorist attack in Garland:
FBI Might Avoid Turning Over Documents in Texas Attack Lawsuit

[srothstein]

Texas Supreme Court ruled this correctly, IMHO (IANAL). The violent perpetrator would have been denied the sale of the firearm itself had USAF personnel done their job and entered the information into NICS. The gun-grabbers love to say "there should be a law", but there are laws. However, the laws cannot work if the system doesn't have the correct information in it.

I am very pleased that Academy is now cleared in this and the other lawsuits. It is the only ruling that makes sense to me.

BUT there is a consequence to this ruling that may bite some of us in the future. Remember, magazines are not part of the weapon by law, according to the Texas Supreme Court. That means that when states ban normal capacity magazines, it is more likely to be 100% legal. The Second Amendment bans infringing on arms, not arms accessories.

It also means if we carry our pistol across state lines and the other state recognizes our LTC, they may still restrict the magazine. California may be able to charge you for having a large capacity magazine even if you download it to 10 rounds. For me, and other officers (active or retired), who carry our weapons across state lines based on federal law allowing it, magazine restrictions may apply because the federal law says weapons and not weapons accessories.

Yes, I am aware that the Texas Supreme Court carries no legal authority outside of Texas, but the decision may be used as a guideline by other courts. Does anyone trust either California courts or the 9th Circuit to not look at this decision and say something like even gun-loving, conservative Texas says we can do this?

[K.Mooneyham]

Texas Supreme Court ruled this correctly, IMHO (IANAL). The violent perpetrator would have been denied the sale of the firearm itself had USAF personnel done their job and entered the information into NICS. The gun-grabbers love to say "there should be a law", but there are laws. However, the laws cannot work if the system doesn't have the correct information in it.

I am very pleased that Academy is now cleared in this and the other lawsuits. It is the only ruling that makes sense to me.

BUT there is a consequence to this ruling that may bite some of us in the future. Remember, magazines are not part of the weapon by law, according to the Texas Supreme Court. That means that when states ban normal capacity magazines, it is more likely to be 100% legal. The Second Amendment bans infringing on arms, not arms accessories.

It also means if we carry our pistol across state lines and the other state recognizes our LTC, they may still restrict the magazine. California may be able to charge you for having a large capacity magazine even if you download it to 10 rounds. For me, and other officers (active or retired), who carry our weapons across state lines based on federal law allowing it, magazine restrictions may apply because the federal law says weapons and not weapons accessories.

Yes, I am aware that the Texas Supreme Court carries no legal authority outside of Texas, but the decision may be used as a guideline by other courts. Does anyone trust either California courts or the 9th Circuit to not look at this decision and say something like even gun-loving, conservative Texas says we can do this?

Okay, I see your rationale. However, didn't the SCOTUS already rule about weapons in common use? And many firearms, particularly handguns, are designed to work with specific magazines. In many cases, there aren't 10-round or less magazines for many of the most common handguns being sold all over the nation. In fact, that's one of the reasons that Californians' choices for handguns get fewer each year. Any handgun there must be submitted to the CA DOJ, and receive "certification" to be placed on a roster of legal handguns. People in most states want MORE capacity, not less, and as an example, manufacturers have responded by making small carry pistols with higher capacities, not all of which have 10 round magazines. In other words, those in-common-use handguns cannot function without those magazines in many cases. So, I would say that any item that breaks the functionality of the firearm is NOT an accessory, but a PART of that firearm.

[srothstein]

Okay, I see your rationale. However, didn't the SCOTUS already rule about weapons in common use?

This is the very problem I was referring to. Weapons in common use are protected by the Second Amendment, according to SCOTUS. Nothing in that ruling mentioned anything about accessories, whether in common use or not, no matter what the demand for the accessory is. And, unfortunately, the law will be what the courts say it is, not what you and I say it is. So, while I agree that a magazine is a part of the weapon, we now have a court ruling that says they are not parts but are accessories. I can think of some very good arguments that say they are parts, such as the magazine disconnect on a Browning Hi-Power (and many other weapons) where the pistol will not fire without the magazine inserted. But the current ruling says I am wrong about it being a part.

Instead of magazines, which the current ruling was specific about, think about other accessories. This was already the law for most of them and they can be regulated. Texas had laws against bayonets for many years, as one example. And there is a current court case about another accessory I don't want to specifically name to avoid word searches, but the ATF will probably lose because they ruled it was covered under NFA 1934. They made everyone give it up or destroy it. But what would have happened if they went after it as an accessory that is not protected under Heller/McDonald? This ruling now says they can do that with magazines, and I am concerned about it.

[K.Mooneyham]

Okay, I see your rationale. However, didn't the SCOTUS already rule about weapons in common use?

This is the very problem I was referring to. Weapons in common use are protected by the Second Amendment, according to SCOTUS. Nothing in that ruling mentioned anything about accessories, whether in common use or not, no matter what the demand for the accessory is. And, unfortunately, the law will be what the courts say it is, not what you and I say it is. So, while I agree that a magazine is a part of the weapon, we now have a court ruling that says they are not parts but are accessories. I can think of some very good arguments that say they are parts, such as the magazine disconnect on a Browning Hi-Power (and many other weapons) where the pistol will not fire without the magazine inserted. But the current ruling says I am wrong about it being a part.

Instead of magazines, which the current ruling was specific about, think about other accessories. This was already the law for most of them and they can be regulated. Texas had laws against bayonets for many years, as one example. And there is a current court case about another accessory I don't want to specifically name to avoid word searches, but the ATF will probably lose because they ruled it was covered under NFA 1934. They made everyone give it up or destroy it. But what would have happened if they went after it as an accessory that is not protected under Heller/McDonald? This ruling now says they can do that with magazines, and I am concerned about it.

Well, until (IF) SCOTUS ever gives a definitive ruling on the subject, I really don't think this will have much impact on any of us. Just another one of those things floating out there that could go badly, but right now just sits there.

[philip964]

https://www.click2houston.com/news/texa ... -shooting/

Judge orders Air Force to pay victims and families $230 million.

[PriestTheRunner]

https://www.click2houston.com/news/texa ... -shooting/

Judge orders Air Force to pay victims and families $230 million.

80 claimants, and assuming 50% goes to the legal team, that results in 1.437mil per claimant or 4.42mil per victim. Not an absurd amount and hopefully enough to show the various government agencies and military branches they need to (also) follow the law.

Also, since there is now a direct NCIS reporting portal for approved agencies as a direct result of this shooting, hopefully gov negligence on this level doesn't happen again...