| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| 'Landmark' decision: Sports retailer cannot be sued for sale of gun used in mass shooting |
| 2021-06-28 |
| [Hot Air] The Texas Supreme Court is on a roll. Yesterday I wrote about a groundbreaking decision made by the court that Facebook can be held liable for sex traffickers who use the social media platform to recruit and prey on children. Today there is a "landmark" decision to be heralded from the court. A retail sports chain cannot be held responsible for selling a gun used in a massing shooting. The mass shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in 2017 resulted in the deaths of 25 innocent churchgoers and 20 injured. A madman entered the church during Sunday morning services and opened fire. Those murdered included a pregnant woman. He turned the gun on himself after that, dying of a self-inflicted gunshot. This horrific event is Texas’ deadliest ever mass shooting. The attention turned to the mass shooter, a 26-year-old former airman, and how he came to have possession of his weapon, a Model 8500 Ruger AR-556, fitted with a 30-round magazine. The former airman had a troubled military record — he served a year in confinement after an assault conviction in 2012 and was released from the USAF in 2014 with a bad conduct discharge. He lived in Comal County, outside of San Antonio. Apparently, this developed from a domestic dispute and his mother-in-law was a member of the church. With that record, the shooter should not have been in possession of a gun, right? Survivors and families of victims filed four lawsuits against Academy Sports + Outdoors, the retailer who sold the gun to the shooter. The lawsuits accused Academy Sports of negligence for making the sale in the first place. On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision — Academy Sports can not be held responsible for the actions of the gun owner. It tossed all four lawsuits. As it turns out, Academy Sports did all it could to make a responsible sale. It followed the law and performed a background check. The shooter, however, wasn’t properly flagged as a risk. The Air Force dropped the ball. The Air Force didn’t enter his domestic violence conviction against his wife and infant son into a government database. This would have prevented him from passing a background check to purchase the gun. When the lawsuits were filed, Academy Sports claimed it was shielded by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law protects firearms dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when the gun owner legally purchases a weapon and then uses it in a crime. The retail store asked State District Judge Karen H. Pozza, a Democrat, to throw out the lawsuits but she ruled against Academy Sports. The unanimous ruling by the Texas Supreme Court was signed by Justice Debra Lehrmann. How could Academy Sports disqualify the shooter from purchasing a gun if the information against him wasn’t available? Related: First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs: 2018-10-29 Four Things You Can Do Right Now to Harden Your Place of Worship Against a Shooter First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs: 2017-11-11 Central NY church after Texas shooting: 'We are NOT a gun-free zone' First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs: 2017-11-09 Sutherland Springs: Mass shooters often have domestic violence trait (Video) |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #7 Landmark case or common sense. ToMAYto / ToMAHto. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2021-06-28 16:47 |
| #6 Law Schools sued because their graduates committed 'malpractice'... |
| Posted by: magpie 2021-06-28 11:51 |
| #5 Isn’t there a case involving Cabelas out there somewhere. Is this case similar? |
| Posted by: Xyz 2021-06-28 08:42 |
| #4 ^...Covid killed 2020, but here's a look back. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2021-06-28 07:51 |
| #3 ^School teachers? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2021-06-28 07:20 |
| #2 Car dealers for misuse of their product leading to deaths. Alcohol producers for the consequences of their product in the hands (guts and brains) of the usual suspects. In the latter some bars have been held accountable when they knew the patron was already drunk but continued service leading to dire consequences for others. The standard is that if the product is legal and sold iaw with the law, the manufacturer is not subject to litigation for the misuse of their product. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2021-06-28 07:05 |
| #1 Just think of all the people that could be sued on BOTH sides of any issue, IF the SCOTX had ruled otherwise. BUT does this ruling still leave open a possible Lawsuit against the USAF / DOJ for Lack of Due Diligence in Federal Courts? BTW: Think of the 10's of 1000's that get turned away because of erroneous Background check data and have spend a wad of $$$ to reclaim their Rights. |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2021-06-28 06:08 |