TexasCHLforum.com

cyphertext wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:22 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:25 am

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:11 pm 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.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:11 pm 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.

srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:07 am 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 ).

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:25 pm

rtschl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:23 pm State Judge is allowing victims to sue retailer where AR15 was purchased.

I haven't read the actual ruling but I wonder how it is reasoned that a retailer is responsible for the failure of the Air Force to report him to NICS. They sold a legal product that was not defective. Academy should be exempt from this lawsuit.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/02/04/tex ... -retailer/

That wont' last. It violates both Texas and federal law.

Chas.

Plus I heard on the news that they were also suing them for having sold the shooter some 30 round magazines. I hate to tell them, but magazine sales aren’t controlled in Texas, or almost anywhere else in the country where the commies don’t run the show.

dlh wrote:I would be interested in looking at his 4473 that he filled out at Academy. Can those be disclosed to the public or are they exempt from disclosure?

I suspect that only the dealer and law enforcement are allowed to see them - otherwise anti-gun groups could begin assembling de-facto “registration” lists for when they take the country full retard. In fact, here’s what Wikipedia says (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473):

These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed by the government to private parties or other government officials except in accordance with the Privacy Act. Individual dealers possessing a copy of the form are not subject to the Privacy Act's restrictions on disclosure. Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales, and for 5 years where the sale was disapproved as a result of the NICS check.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about the Privacy Act (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974):

The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896, enacted December 31, 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a), a United States federal law, establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent of the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements. Additionally, with people granted the right to review what was documented with their name, they are also able to find out if the "records have been disclosed".. and are also given the rights to make corrections.[1]

That would explain why oppo researchers can’t just go look up a candidate’s tax returns; they have to wait for the candidate/politician to release them for publication. Otherwise, the Clinton campaign would have had Trump’s tax returns and used them to try and burn him. So if a 4473 has that same status, then no, they cannot be disclosed to the public except possibly by either law enforcement or the individual concerned.

flechero wrote:

5thGenTexan wrote: On another note, Saw the Dallas Bishop has asked that parish 30.06 30.07 signs to be taken down but keep banning guns

That makes no sense. So he wants BG's to THINK it's not a soft target but still wants it to BE a soft target. WTH?

In light of this tragic event, Bishop Edward J. Burns has asked that parishes in the Diocese of Dallas consider appropriate safety measures, including the removal of all signs prohibiting the concealed carry of firearms on campus to eliminate any perception that any of our parishes would be an easy target for terror. But let us be clear, the policy of prohibiting the open or concealed possession of firearms at our parishes still stands.

You can't make this stuff up.

That’s the most assinine thing I’ve heard in a long time.

This is not to distract from what happened at that church this morning, but to expand on it. We had a speaker at our church today, someone whose work means that there were a several very serious looking plain-clothed guys in suits and “mil-spec” haircuts, with ear buds observing the crowd for possible trouble. The speaker was David Eubanks, former commander of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, and then a Special Forces officer, who is a Christian missionary in his “retirement” (he’s still only about 56-57 years old). He is the founder of the Free Burma Rangers, and more recently has been involved in rendering humanitarian relief while actually under fire in places like Mosul and Kurdish Iraq. There’s a YouTube video that has been seen a lot - part of a film that is under production - where Eubanks is seen rescuing a little girl while under machinegun fire. The Los Angeles Times has an article HERE about their work. His wife and kids are almost more amazing than he is, and his eldest is a 17 year old teenaged girl. All his kids have ever known is this life of living in or near war zones, ministering to the desperate and needy. And it’s not just his family. Part of his team in Iraq are some of his original Free Burma Rangers - Asians who would have never considered undertaking extremely risky and dangerous missionary work in a Middle Eastern country, if not for someone being willing to risk everything, his life, even his family’s safety (with their complete and involved consent) in order to share the gospel with them.

https://youtu.be/7cVDJtoVL-c

The point of all this is that in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, there are brave and selfless people bringing the heart and meaning of “church” to places where it would not otherwise be found. And yet here, right in the heart of the “Bible Belt”, a part of the country where people probably feel the safest when going to church, where the risks associated with being a Christian are lower than anywhere else on the planet, a single person motivated by some kind of insane hatred manages in a few minutes to slaughter half of a congregation, and wounded the rest. We live in a world where great evil is no longer confined to places like Burma and Mosul, Iraq. And it is compounded when the reaction of our political leaders is to try and keep the innocent from being able to defend themselves.

It’s disgusting, isn’t it?

anygunanywhere wrote:Rep Vicente Gonzalez just said on CNN the shooter’s name is Sam Hyde.

Idiots interviewing an idiot.

Sam Hyde is an Internet meme, and Gonzalez totally fell for it. What an idiot. Someone should tell him the shooter’s real name is Leroy Jenkins, just to see if he repeats that nonsense too.