Texas court rules retailer can't be sued over mass shooting

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.axios.com/texas-court-mass-shooting-retailer-cant-be-sued-d1e1157b-2862-400f-8eb0-2e251515433e.html

Survivors and families of victims of a 2017 mass shooting in a Texas church can't sue the gun retailer that sold the weapon used in the attack, the state's supreme court has ruled.

The big picture: Plaintiffs alleged in four lawsuits against Academy Sports and Outdoors that the San Antonio-area store negligently sold the gun to Devin Kelley in 2016, who went on to kill 26 people at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs before killing himself.

* The Air Force failed to enter Kelley's conviction for domestic violence against his wife and infant son into a government database, which should have prevented him from buying the Ruger AR-556 rifle.

What they're saying: The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that the retailer was protected from litigation under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

* "Although federal law disqualified Kelley from purchasing a firearm at the time of the sale — based in part on his conviction in a 2012 court-martial for assaulting his wife and stepson and his dishonorable discharge from the United States Air Force — that disqualifying information was not in the system, which authorized Academy to 'Proceed' with the sale," the court stated.

* The court noted in its ruling that federal litigation over the Air Force's handling of the incident was still before the courts.

*the end*

[NutmegYankee]

1. Even without the Federal law, the case was not on solid ground.

If the business checked the government database as required, and that database was clean, it’s hard to find the business negligent.

[Dr. Strange]

2. Yeah, seems like a no-brainer.

The business followed the rules we've set up.

[Volaris]

3. I mean....yeah, it sucks. BUT if the retailer didnt know...

I guess I think the opposite system should be in place. Unless you're state or federally APPROVED for firearms purchase, the kid at walmart SHOULDNT be able to sell you a gun.

Yes, yes, Second Amendment, I get it.
The 2nd speaks only of OWNERSHIP tho, NOT PURCHASING.

If ownership is about being in a well-regulated militia, shouldnt the Arms available be ONLY distributed by the Armed Forces Command structure?
And then only AFTER demonstrated proficiency to said command structure?

Yes, if you want to hunt, own all the bolt actions you need. If you want an AR-15, shouldnt the Army have to approve? Shouldnt the Army have to train?
Shouldnt the Army be the ones approving the sale of such weapons?
The very IDEA of a militia force is to buttress the force an Army can exert on the battlefield.

In the case of the Navy, a militia force is called Privateers, is it not?
Is it NOT THE CASE that unless you have a specific piece of paper from the government that says you can have your own naval force, and do naval things with it, THAT YOURE CONSIDERED A PIRATE, AND THAT WHAT YOUR DOING IS ILLEGAL AS FUCK?!