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

[C-dub]

It sounds like a huge mess. Aren't some rifles/carbines sold with one or more 30 rounds mags? It's been so long since I purchased mine I don't remember. It may have only come with one or two 10 rounders.

Will it make a difference if it was sold with the rifle as part of the package and not separately? Ugh!

[The Annoyed Man]

This is going to turn into a very important case due to its unintended consequences. As I understand the legal question in the case is going to turn on if a magazine is a part of the weapon or an accessory. The purchaser was from out of state and the federal law requires the seller to obey the home states laws as well as its own. In Colorado, it is illegal to sell an AR-15 with a 15 round magazine. So, if the magazine is a part of the weapon, then the sale was illegal. If the magazine is an accessory instead, then the sale was legal. In a case like this, the problem is they could have sold the weapon with a ten round magazine and then sold him 3 thirty round extra magazines off the accessory shelf and it would have been entirely legal. As I understand it, there is a legal principle that a law should not be interpreted to make no sense and this last part makes the concept of the sale with a full size magazine being illegal sound like nonsense to me.

But now we need to consider a weird possible consequence for this case. If I travel to another state and use either my LEOSA or reciprocity for my LTC, they generally say my weapon is legal. But what happens in those states where my weapon is legal but there is a magazine limit of ten rounds for pistols, or a ban on hollow-point ammunition. Can I still carry my XD with a 13 round magazine loaded with hollow-points? If the magazine is a part of the weapon I can. If it is an accessory, I may not be allowed to.

I do not want to see Academy held liable, but I really prefer that magazines are considered parts of the weapons for my personal benefit. I am concerned about the consequences of the decision either way though.

Wait... I’m confused.... srothstein, are you saying that if the buyer were federally qualified to make that purchase in either state, he could have lawfully bought the gun in Texas with a Colorado DL? For instance, since I’m legally able to buy an AR15 in Texas, I could also legally buy one FTF from an FFL in Utah by using my Texas DL?
I am aware that Texas laws allows a qualified person to purchase rifles and shotguns, ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories in contiguous states; but Colorado is not a contiguous state. Or is it a matter of Texas allowing a qualified individual from a non-contiguous state to buy a firearm in Texas?

Otherwise, I’m completely baffled as to how an Academy store in Texas would sell a firearm to someone with a CDL whom they believed was a legally qualified buyer, seeing as how CO isn’t contiguous to Texas (unless you include all of what USED to be part of Texas before it was admitted to the Union ).

[Bvhawk]

If he used his military id he could buy a rifle here in Texas, iirc..

[C-dub]

This is going to turn into a very important case due to its unintended consequences. As I understand the legal question in the case is going to turn on if a magazine is a part of the weapon or an accessory. The purchaser was from out of state and the federal law requires the seller to obey the home states laws as well as its own. In Colorado, it is illegal to sell an AR-15 with a 15 round magazine. So, if the magazine is a part of the weapon, then the sale was illegal. If the magazine is an accessory instead, then the sale was legal. In a case like this, the problem is they could have sold the weapon with a ten round magazine and then sold him 3 thirty round extra magazines off the accessory shelf and it would have been entirely legal. As I understand it, there is a legal principle that a law should not be interpreted to make no sense and this last part makes the concept of the sale with a full size magazine being illegal sound like nonsense to me.

But now we need to consider a weird possible consequence for this case. If I travel to another state and use either my LEOSA or reciprocity for my LTC, they generally say my weapon is legal. But what happens in those states where my weapon is legal but there is a magazine limit of ten rounds for pistols, or a ban on hollow-point ammunition. Can I still carry my XD with a 13 round magazine loaded with hollow-points? If the magazine is a part of the weapon I can. If it is an accessory, I may not be allowed to.

I do not want to see Academy held liable, but I really prefer that magazines are considered parts of the weapons for my personal benefit. I am concerned about the consequences of the decision either way though.

Wait... I’m confused.... srothstein, are you saying that if the buyer were federally qualified to make that purchase in either state, he could have lawfully bought the gun in Texas with a Colorado DL? For instance, since I’m legally able to buy an AR15 in Texas, I could also legally buy one FTF from an FFL in Utah by using my Texas DL?
I am aware that Texas laws allows a qualified person to purchase rifles and shotguns, ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories in contiguous states; but Colorado is not a contiguous state. Or is it a matter of Texas allowing a qualified individual from a non-contiguous state to buy a firearm in Texas?

Otherwise, I’m completely baffled as to how an Academy store in Texas would sell a firearm to someone with a CDL whom they believed was a legally qualified buyer, seeing as how CO isn’t contiguous to Texas (unless you include all of what USED to be part of Texas before it was admitted to the Union ).

I'm not exactly sure what year, but the contiguous state thing for Texas fell by the wayside several years ago. My Colt M4 (semiauto only, but stamped with "M4") was purchased from a LGS in Topeka not far from where my parents used to live 8-10ish years ago. I did all the paperwork, my CHL did not get me out of the NICS check in Kansas, but I walked out of the door with it that day or the next. I don't remember now.

[Scott Farkus]

Wait... I’m confused.... srothstein, are you saying that if the buyer were federally qualified to make that purchase in either state, he could have lawfully bought the gun in Texas with a Colorado DL? For instance, since I’m legally able to buy an AR15 in Texas, I could also legally buy one FTF from an FFL in Utah by using my Texas DL?
I am aware that Texas laws allows a qualified person to purchase rifles and shotguns, ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories in contiguous states; but Colorado is not a contiguous state. Or is it a matter of Texas allowing a qualified individual from a non-contiguous state to buy a firearm in Texas?

Otherwise, I’m completely baffled as to how an Academy store in Texas would sell a firearm to someone with a CDL whom they believed was a legally qualified buyer, seeing as how CO isn’t contiguous to Texas (unless you include all of what USED to be part of Texas before it was admitted to the Union ).

As I understand it, an FFL can sell and deliver a rifle to a resident of any state as long as said rifle is legal to be sold in the resident's state. Handguns can also be sold but must be transferred to an FFL in the resident's state for delivery. Is this not correct?

I'm not familiar with the "contiguous states" thing you reference. What is that?

[srothstein]

Wait... I’m confused.... srothstein, are you saying that if the buyer were federally qualified to make that purchase in either state, he could have lawfully bought the gun in Texas with a Colorado DL? For instance, since I’m legally able to buy an AR15 in Texas, I could also legally buy one FTF from an FFL in Utah by using my Texas DL?
I am aware that Texas laws allows a qualified person to purchase rifles and shotguns, ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories in contiguous states; but Colorado is not a contiguous state. Or is it a matter of Texas allowing a qualified individual from a non-contiguous state to buy a firearm in Texas?

TAM, as someone else pointed out, the requirement that it be a contiguous state was done away with several years ago. As I understand it, and I am not sure on this, the federal law that required it to be a contiguous state was modified if the state passed a law allowing sale to residents of other states. Our law, PC 46.07, was modified to meet that requirement and specifically mentions the federal law that says "if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States". This is why the question of whether a magazine is part of the weapon is so critical to if Academy broke the law.

[cyphertext]

As much as I hate it, it does appear that Academy broke the law as it is written. Since Ruger sells the rifle with a 30 round magazine, as well as a "compliant" model with a 10 round magazine under different model numbers and SKUs, it does appear that Academy did break the law. Many of us complain about "activist judges"... well, here is a case that could bite the good guy with the law as written.

[Paladin]

It does not may any sense that someone's 2nd amendment rights would stop at a state line. There are all kinds of things that are banned in places like California, but are perfectly legal for sale in other states. Like to sell a car in California it must meet certain California emission standards due to local pollution issues, but most other states sell cars that don't meet those standards and are not required to. If you are from California, but spend part of the year in Texas and have bought a car to use in Texas, that Texas car shouldn't have to meet California auto emission standards. How in the world could every auto seller be expected to know/enforce the laws of all 50 states when they are only operating in a given state?

The Sutherland Springs murderer did not have the right to buy a firearm in any state, but made it through the background check system anyway. Seems that is the real issue.

[The Annoyed Man]

As much as I hate it, it does appear that Academy broke the law as it is written. Since Ruger sells the rifle with a 30 round magazine, as well as a "compliant" model with a 10 round magazine under different model numbers and SKUs, it does appear that Academy did break the law. Many of us complain about "activist judges"... well, here is a case that could bite the good guy with the law as written.

I suppose that the outcome will depend on how the court defines the word "includes" (see attached image below). My Ruger PC9 and Gunsite Scout both came with "included" buttstock spacers, but the weapons can fully function without any of the spacers. So are they accessories (which by the way, they can be purchased separately that way from Ruger), or are they part of the gun? Since the AR556 can be fired and eject the spent case without the included magazine (just like with any AR15, and regardless of magazine capacity) by dropping a round into the chamber and letting the bolt slam home and then firing the gun, it seems like it would be an easy enough argument to make in court that a magazine is not necessary to firing the gun, if presented along with an easily made video demonstrating that fact to a judge or jury.

It could boil down to what kind of judge the prosecutor can get by shopping the case around.

So AT WORST, if they can get a fair judge, Academy is guilty of selling him a prohibited magazine ... which is a different kettle of fish.

[mojo84]

I think the Academy situation is a prime example of why some companies decide to err on the side of caution and set company policies so it would be easier to keep within the law. I would not blame a company for establishing a company policy of only selling to someone with a valid in state ID considering how difficult it is to keep up with all the different states' laws.

Another example would be a company setting the age for all ammo at 21 due to the difficulty of proving they were satisfied the ammo was going to be used in a rifle instead of a handgun and the purchaser was between 18-21.

Just can't rely on typical retail clerks to be that well versed in the various states' law and always making the right judgement.

[Boxerrider]

I think the Academy situation is a prime example of why some companies decide to err on the side of caution and set company policies so it would be easier to keep within the law. I would not blame a company for establishing a company policy of only selling to someone with a valid in state ID considering how difficult it is to keep up with all the different states' laws.

Another example would be a company setting the age for all ammo at 21 due to the difficulty of proving they were satisfied the ammo was going to be used in a rifle instead of a handgun and the purchaser was between 18-21.

Just can't rely on typical retail clerks to be that well versed in the various states' law and always making the right judgement.

I agree, and if this is allowed to continue it will steadily get worse. Byzantine regulations nobody can make sense out of and everyone is afraid of violating. This is how we get de facto infringement.

[sjfcontrol]

I think the Academy situation is a prime example of why some companies decide to err on the side of caution and set company policies so it would be easier to keep within the law. I would not blame a company for establishing a company policy of only selling to someone with a valid in state ID considering how difficult it is to keep up with all the different states' laws.

Another example would be a company setting the age for all ammo at 21 due to the difficulty of proving they were satisfied the ammo was going to be used in a rifle instead of a handgun and the purchaser was between 18-21.

Just can't rely on typical retail clerks to be that well versed in the various states' law and always making the right judgement.

I agree, and if this is allowed to continue it will steadily get worse. Byzantine regulations nobody can make sense out of and everyone is afraid of violating. This is how we get de facto infringement.

That’s not infringement. It’s pretty much the definition of tyranny.

[cyphertext]

As much as I hate it, it does appear that Academy broke the law as it is written. Since Ruger sells the rifle with a 30 round magazine, as well as a "compliant" model with a 10 round magazine under different model numbers and SKUs, it does appear that Academy did break the law. Many of us complain about "activist judges"... well, here is a case that could bite the good guy with the law as written.

I suppose that the outcome will depend on how the court defines the word "includes" (see attached image below). My Ruger PC9 and Gunsite Scout both came with "included" buttstock spacers, but the weapons can fully function without any of the spacers. So are they accessories (which by the way, they can be purchased separately that way from Ruger), or are they part of the gun? Since the AR556 can be fired and eject the spent case without the included magazine (just like with any AR15, and regardless of magazine capacity) by dropping a round into the chamber and letting the bolt slam home and then firing the gun, it seems like it would be an easy enough argument to make in court that a magazine is not necessary to firing the gun, if presented along with an easily made video demonstrating that fact to a judge or jury.

It could boil down to what kind of judge the prosecutor can get by shopping the case around.


7D6BAA86-A544-4B36-96D4-59B8BD12783A.jpeg


So AT WORST, if they can get a fair judge, Academy is guilty of selling him a prohibited magazine ... which is a different kettle of fish.

You could be right TAM, and I hope you are. I can see it being argued both ways... One could argue that the term "compliant model" is nothing but marketing, since the rifle is the exact same and the only difference is the accessories in the box. Therefore, they did not sell him a rifle that is prohibited. Guess we will just have to see how this one plays out.

[The Annoyed Man]

As much as I hate it, it does appear that Academy broke the law as it is written. Since Ruger sells the rifle with a 30 round magazine, as well as a "compliant" model with a 10 round magazine under different model numbers and SKUs, it does appear that Academy did break the law. Many of us complain about "activist judges"... well, here is a case that could bite the good guy with the law as written.

I suppose that the outcome will depend on how the court defines the word "includes" (see attached image below). My Ruger PC9 and Gunsite Scout both came with "included" buttstock spacers, but the weapons can fully function without any of the spacers. So are they accessories (which by the way, they can be purchased separately that way from Ruger), or are they part of the gun? Since the AR556 can be fired and eject the spent case without the included magazine (just like with any AR15, and regardless of magazine capacity) by dropping a round into the chamber and letting the bolt slam home and then firing the gun, it seems like it would be an easy enough argument to make in court that a magazine is not necessary to firing the gun, if presented along with an easily made video demonstrating that fact to a judge or jury.

It could boil down to what kind of judge the prosecutor can get by shopping the case around.


7D6BAA86-A544-4B36-96D4-59B8BD12783A.jpeg


So AT WORST, if they can get a fair judge, Academy is guilty of selling him a prohibited magazine ... which is a different kettle of fish.

You could be right TAM, and I hope you are. I can see it being argued both ways... One could argue that the term "compliant model" is nothing but marketing, since the rifle is the exact same and the only difference is the accessories in the box. Therefore, they did not sell him a rifle that is prohibited. Guess we will just have to see how this one plays out.

[mojo84]

Since there is no need to show ID to purchase a magazine, I do not think claiming the magazine is an accessory that holds 30 rounds, which would be illegal in Colorado, is going to hold water. While the gun will shoot one shot at a time without the magazine, it does not function as intended without one. I hate this and wish Academy hadn't screwed up but it appears they did in this case.

To me, the real failure in the system happened when the Air Force failed to report the shooter's criminal history to NICS six times.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic ... wife-says/

Kelley, a veteran, had a history of domestic abuse and other violent behavior that the U.S. Air Force admitted it failed to report to a federal criminal database, allowing him to purchase his weapons without raising red flags. In a December report, the Air Force said it failed on six occasions to report information that would have prevented Kelley from legally purchasing a gun.

I suspect Academy and other retailers will stop selling guns to out of state people since it is so difficult for sales clerks to keep up with all the states different laws.