Gun Control & RKBA

jpak

(41,758 posts) Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:16 PM Aug 2012

Brady Center Leads Challenge to Arms Act that Protects Firearms Industry

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2012/08/brady-center-leads-challenge-arms-act-protects-firearms-manufacturers

The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that protects the gun industry from liability lawsuits by gun-grabbers, has been challenged in Alaska in a case that may give gun-control activists a chance to test the law before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to an analysis by Andrew Longstreth published by Reuters on August 9.

At issue is whether a Juneau gun dealer is liable for letting a homeless felon leave his store with a rifle, which he used to murder a total stranger two days later. The family of the murder victim, Anchorage contractor Simone Kim -- and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence -- filed a wrongful death lawsuit that has made it to the Alaska Supreme Court.

The Kims are challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects the gun industry from most lawsuits. "It's a very important case. This is the first state Supreme Court that will be deciding the breadth of the law as it applies to gun dealers who supply criminals with guns and profit from that," said Jonathan Lowy, an attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C., who is co-counsel for the Kims.

On August 2, 2006, Jason Coday, a drifter originally from Vernal, Utah, with a lengthy arrest record, left a Juneau gun store carrying a Ruger .22 rifle. Two days later, he used the gun to kill Simone Kim, a 26-year-old contract painter in downtown Juneau. Coday was convicted of first-degree murder and other charges and sentenced to 101 years in prison.

<more>

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Brady Center Leads Challenge to Arms Act that Protects Firearms Industry (Original Post) jpak Aug 2012 OP

du rec. nt xchrom Aug 2012 #1

As I understand it gejohnston Aug 2012 #2

Tell it to the judge SecularMotion Aug 2012 #3

because they didn't prove he sold the gun gejohnston Aug 2012 #5

That story is very sketchy SecularMotion Aug 2012 #7

pretty sketchy perhaps gejohnston Aug 2012 #9

re: "...the Brady Campaign is wasting their time..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #4

"...he knowingly allowed Coday to pay for the gun without first getting a background check." slackmaster Aug 2012 #6

I don't know where you are but BigAlanMac Aug 2012 #11

I'm in California. The paperwork and background check amount to about 20-30 minutes of hassle. slackmaster Aug 2012 #13

For the last 15 years it has taken me 10min. to complete the purchase oneshooter Aug 2012 #14

Wait a second Missycim Aug 2012 #8

Easy... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #10

I see a beautiful ant-gun effort about to fail. aikoaiko Aug 2012 #12

xchrom

(108,903 posts)

1. du rec. nt

Reply to jpak (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:18 PM

Aug 2012

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

2. As I understand it

Reply to jpak (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:26 PM

Aug 2012

if the dealer violated federal law and the terms of his license, he won't be protected. If that is the case, the Brady Campaign is wasting their time.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

According to the Brady Center, Coxe has a history of selling guns off the books then later claiming that they are missing. They claim an audit of his gun store found 200 firearms missing from the inventory.

It's a strange argument to make if the intent is to challenge the law because, by virtue of the Brady Center's own investigation, it appears the law was not followed. The bottom line: either Coday slipped out of the store with a gun or Coxe illegally sold Coday the rifle.

If this is true, Coxe is not protected by the law. If this is true, he could also be looking at losing his FFL and going to prison.

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)

3. Tell it to the judge

Reply to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:30 PM

Aug 2012

In 2008, Kim's family and the Bradyites sued gun store owner Ray Coxe, alleging that he knowingly allowed Coday to pay for the gun without first getting a background check. An Alaska state judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2010, citing the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits civil claims against gun makers and dealers for the "misuse of their products by others."

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

5. because they didn't prove he sold the gun

Reply to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:48 PM

Aug 2012

IIRC, Coxe's story is that the clerk left Coday alone with the weapon unsecure. Coday walked left $200 on the counter and walked out with the gun. If true, that clerk should not still be there.

Ripping off a gun store is like robbing a bank, both federal crimes. Was Coday charged or convicted of stealing the gun?
Did the ATF sanction Coxe lack luster inventory control? I heard of FFLs losing their license for less.
If the answers are yes/no, then the judge was correct
If the answers are no/yes, then his decision was not correct.

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)

7. That story is very sketchy

Reply to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:59 PM

Aug 2012

but true or false I think it would fall under " other actions for which they are directly responsible."

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

9. pretty sketchy perhaps

Reply to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:08 PM

Aug 2012

most gun stores I have been in, there was at least two clerks near by all of the times. The other ones was just the owner and they never left you alone with anything.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,481 posts)

4. re: "...the Brady Campaign is wasting their time..."

Reply to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:36 PM

Aug 2012

NO!!! Say it ain't so.

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

6. "...he knowingly allowed Coday to pay for the gun without first getting a background check."

Reply to jpak (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:59 PM

Aug 2012

That's always how it's done. The customer chooses a firearm, then pays for it, then comes the background check. If the background check comes back clean, the dealer is authorized to deliver the firearm to the customer.

If the dealer has followed the law, regulations, and procedures to the letter, why should he or she be held liable for a failure of the system to stop a sale to a known felon?

BigAlanMac

(59 posts)

11. I don't know where you are but

Reply to slackmaster (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:30 PM

Aug 2012

that certainly is not true anywhere I've bought guns from stores. (Ohio and Virginia)

No money changed hands or guns passed over until I filled out a 4473, it was phoned in, and a "go ahead" was received from NICS. I know this to be true for everyone else I know who has bought a firearm from an FFL in the last couple of decades.

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

13. I'm in California. The paperwork and background check amount to about 20-30 minutes of hassle.

Reply to BigAlanMac (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:09 PM

Aug 2012

Dealers want to make sure they get paid for their time whether or not the transfer is successful.

In any case, it really doesn't make any difference as long as a firearm doesn't get delivered to a non-licensee until the background check is complete. I don't see anything in this case that suggests the dealer who sold the rifle did anything wrong.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)

14. For the last 15 years it has taken me 10min. to complete the purchase

Reply to BigAlanMac (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 09:49 PM

Aug 2012

of a firearm.

1. Choose the one you want. This can well be the hardest part of the transaction.

2. Fill out the required Federal Form,re 4473. About 5 minutes.

3. Show them your Texas CHL.

4. Pay for purchase.

5. ENJOY!

No phone call, no waiting.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Missycim

(950 posts)

8. Wait a second

Reply to jpak (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:02 PM

Aug 2012

how can the gun maker be held responsible for the actions of the dealer?

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,481 posts)

10. Easy...

Reply to Missycim (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:28 PM

Aug 2012

...it's called a miscarriage of justice.

aikoaiko

(34,183 posts)

12. I see a beautiful ant-gun effort about to fail.

Reply to jpak (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:09 PM

Aug 2012

This dealer may be a bad dealer, but that needs to be proven.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act doesn't protect dealers who commit crimes when transferring firearms.

Reply to this discussion