TexasCHLforum.com

https://bearingarms.com/micah-r/2018/08 ... g-lawsuit/

Though the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) states, “Because weapons that meet the definition of an ‘antique firearm’ are not firearms subject to the GCA, licensees need not conduct a background check when transferring an antique firearm,” the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action notes that Ohio law treats antique firearms like any modern firearm.

Interesting, so this is one case where the Feds would have had no issue, but the state would.

Flightmare wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:00 pm https://bearingarms.com/micah-r/2018/08 ... g-lawsuit/

Though the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) states, “Because weapons that meet the definition of an ‘antique firearm’ are not firearms subject to the GCA, licensees need not conduct a background check when transferring an antique firearm,” the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action notes that Ohio law treats antique firearms like any modern firearm.

Interesting, so this is one case where the Feds would have had no issue, but the state would.

My question is, why would the Feds, do a background check, on a gun, not requiring it under their statute? Does Ohio, have it's own background check system? It sounds a lot like the law passed in Nevada, requiring background checks on all firearms transactions, but the Feds, refused to perform them.
I'm not exonerating Cabela's if there is a State law requiring the check, then it should have been performed, but Ohio, should be required to perform that check, if it is only a State law. They shouldn't expect, The Feds to do it for them. JMHO

There's a slight detail that might throw a wrench in the suit. Ohio doesn't require background checks on black powder firearms. So if it's an antique/curio and black powder, which description prevails?

Seems to me that the State of Ohio is culpable because they allowed the violent offender to go free after committing so many violent acts, acts for which he could have been prosecute and jailed for considerable amounts of time. The family should sue the state for gross negligence.

K.Mooneyham wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:02 am Seems to me that the State of Ohio is culpable because they allowed the violent offender to go free after committing so many violent acts, acts for which he could have been prosecute and jailed for considerable amounts of time. The family should sue the state for gross negligence.

Zombified wrote: Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:56 pm There's a slight detail that might throw a wrench in the suit. Ohio doesn't require background checks on black powder firearms. So if it's an antique/curio and black powder, which description prevails?

According to the provided link Ohio treats all firearms the same, black powder as well, and Ohio requires a background check on all firearms.
That said, I believe Ohio should shoulder the responsibility AND cost of said enhanced background check that they require not the feds. Anyone
selling anything in Ohio (or anywhere) should know & follow that states laws and should be held accountable if they break said laws. Sad that
this had to happen at all.

I just tried to read the Ohio law, and I am not sure that Cabela's violated the law. The law does not except black powder or antiques from its definition of firearms. It also does say it is illegal to recklessly sell a firearm to a prohibited person. And it defines the convicted felon as a prohibited person though there is a way to get his firearms rights restored (we don't know if he did or not in this case but I presume not).

What I did not find was a requirement for a background check requirement for the sale. And their law specifically exempts the black powder firearms regardless of age from being required to prove the ID of the owner or report that sale to the sheriff.

I think Cabela's should move for the dismissal of the case because they did not break the law while selling the firearm (protection of firearms trade federal law). This would force the plaintiff to prove the sale was reckless when the law was obeyed. That should be an interesting brief to read.

http://www.ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=92189

The above link is a discussion from Ohio gun owners confirming my opinion that Ohio does not require background check on black powder firearms. I couldn't find anything in the above links that mentioned black powder firearms. They only mention antique firearms. Ohio statute 2923.11 appears to exclude black powder as a dangerous ordnance but has some pretty broad definitions of a firearm.

really? Do car dealers get sued for accidents?