Now what kind of attorney would tell their client they had a case?
Academy sued by relatives of Texas Chuch shooting victims
Seriously?
SAN ANTONIO — Relatives of three people killed in the November shooting rampage inside a Texas church are suing a sporting goods chain that sold two firearms to the gunman.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday seeks $25 million in damages. It alleges that Texas-based Academy Sports & Outdoors was negligent in selling an AR-556 rifle to Devin Patrick Kelley. The weapon was used in the Nov. 5 attack.
The lawsuit was filed in San Antonio by the family of Joann Ward. She and her two daughters were among the more than two dozen people killed in the attack.
The sporting goods retailer released a statement offering condolences to the victims but said it complied with all laws. The company previously confirmed Kelley purchased two firearms from two of its stores in San Antonio in 2016 and 2017.
SAN ANTONIO — Relatives of three people killed in the November shooting rampage inside a Texas church are suing a sporting goods chain that sold two firearms to the gunman.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday seeks $25 million in damages. It alleges that Texas-based Academy Sports & Outdoors was negligent in selling an AR-556 rifle to Devin Patrick Kelley. The weapon was used in the Nov. 5 attack.
The lawsuit was filed in San Antonio by the family of Joann Ward. She and her two daughters were among the more than two dozen people killed in the attack.
The sporting goods retailer released a statement offering condolences to the victims but said it complied with all laws. The company previously confirmed Kelley purchased two firearms from two of its stores in San Antonio in 2016 and 2017.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Watch day time tv
One that said, "We'll need XXX for a downpayment and then when the case is settled we'll take xx% of the award. The money you're paying now is really just to show your earnestness in pursuring justice."Now what kind of attorney would tell their client they had a case?
(Of course, I'm just a lay person; I don't know if such a structure is either legal or ethical.)
One paid by the anti-gun lobby, which is using the family as canon fodder.Now what kind of attorney would tell their client they had a case?
After losing, they will be used again to show how evil gun sellers are.
Immoral and unethical, but those aren't burdens that haunt progressives.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ents-broke-suing-gun-seller-article-1.2583138
Some have suggested, elsewhere, that the shooter had a CO address at the time of the purchase of the long rifles and thus Academy should not have sold to him in TX. Unfortunately for them, I believe that the Texas resident issue only applies to handgun purchases. Vaild ID which can come in many forms, is all that is required for long gun purchases in TX.
The Brady Campaign was the driving force behind that Aurora theater shooting lawsuit. I wonder why they incurred no financial responsibility for their part in using the Phillips family the way they did?One paid by the anti-gun lobby, which is using the family as canon fodder.
After losing, they will be used again to show how evil gun sellers are.
Immoral and unethical, but those aren't burdens that haunt progressives.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ents-broke-suing-gun-seller-article-1.2583138
That applies to every state I believe. Unless a state specifically prohibits long gun sales to non-residents, you are good to go. There's no federal restriction either.Vaild ID which can come in many forms, is all that is required for long gun purchases in TX.
I was thinking it only applied to handguns and then it had to be shipped to a FFLThat applies to every state I believe. Unless a state specifically prohibits long gun sales to non-residents, you are good to go. There's no federal restriction either.
Unless there's more to the story than we know, any lawyer putting his name on such a frivolous lawsuit should be in danger of (1) being disciplined by the State Bar, and (2) paying all of the legal fees and other incidental costs incurred by the defendant.
When the government regulates the retail sale of guns to a high degree, as we do in America, compliance with those government laws and regulations is the ONLY duty imposed on the seller of a firearm.
When the government regulates the retail sale of guns to a high degree, as we do in America, compliance with those government laws and regulations is the ONLY duty imposed on the seller of a firearm.
But guns! Academy should read the mind of the people buying them and know not to sell to the crazy people that are approved by the government.Unless there's more to the story than we know, any lawyer putting his name on such a frivolous lawsuit should be in danger of (1) being disciplined by the State Bar, and (2) paying all of the legal fees and other incidental costs incurred by the defendant.
When the government regulates the retail sale of guns to a high degree, as we do in America, compliance with those government laws and regulations is the ONLY duty imposed on the seller of a firearm.
I'm going out on a limb and assuming the lawyer has an escape clause for him/her self for #2 which places any financial burden on the plaintiffs if (when) the case goes south.Unless there's more to the story than we know, any lawyer putting his name on such a frivolous lawsuit should be in danger of (1) being disciplined by the State Bar, and (2) paying all of the legal fees and other incidental costs incurred by the defendant.
When the government regulates the retail sale of guns to a high degree, as we do in America, compliance with those government laws and regulations is the ONLY duty imposed on the seller of a firearm.
Who remembers the last family that tried to do this?
Last I recalled they lost and were held liable for the attorney fees for the other side.
Here we go: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html
Last I recalled they lost and were held liable for the attorney fees for the other side.
Here we go: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html
Like I mentioned above, Brady walked away with no financial responsibility or repercussions and left the Phillips family on the hook for all of it.Who remembers the last family that tried to do this?
Last I recalled they lost and were held liable for the attorney fees for the other side.
Here we go: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html
Feature, not bug. The hoplophobes want to sacrifice a victim's family on the alter of nobility privilege to prove moral superiority. We need to extend the "loser pays" from just the named plaintiff to the sponsors of the SLAPP suits. Heck, go after the law firms if there is a pattern of failed SLAPP suits. RICO for lawyers.
They system allows the family to do that. But they no doubt signed away that right in exchange for "free" legal services.Feature, not bug. The hoplophobes want to sacrifice a victim's family on the alter of nobility privilege to prove moral superiority. We need to extend the "loser pays" from just the named plaintiff to the sponsors of the SLAPP suits. Heck, go after the law firms if there is a pattern of failed SLAPP suits. RICO for lawyers.
Caveat emptor
Texas law.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.
(a) In General- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
(b) Dismissal of Pending Actions- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.
Texas law?
You cited a federal law that trumps any Texas law on the subject.
Section 2 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act says:
Why would Congress preempt state products liability laws this way and say that Congress is doing it under the authority of the Full Faith & Credit clause?
It should be the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, paragraph 2.
You cited a federal law that trumps any Texas law on the subject.
Section 2 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act says:
(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action ...solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products ...
(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes...
(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities...Fourteenth Amendment ...
(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment ...
(6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States.
(7) To exercise congressional power under article IV, section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States Constitution.
Why would Congress preempt state products liability laws this way and say that Congress is doing it under the authority of the Full Faith & Credit clause?
It should be the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, paragraph 2.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing
A forum community dedicated to Georgia firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
