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

Reports of actual crimes and investigations, not hypothetical situations.

Moderators: Keith B, carlson1


dlh
Senior Member
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:16 pm

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

Postby dlh » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:56 pm

I will assume a few things:
the case was filed in state district court (the article does not say whether the suit was filed in state district court or federal court);
Academy will be well-represented;
their lawyers will read the petition and do some research;
If appropriate they will file a motion for summary judgment and ask that the case be tossed;
The Supreme Court of Texas loves to toss cases like this (think intervening criminal conduct);
If filed in federal court I do not see the fifth circuit being sympathetic to the plantiffs.

Well worth it to keep up with this case.
Last edited by dlh on Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts: 3319
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: DFW, TX

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

Postby bblhd672 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:02 pm

Jusme wrote:If they want to sue someone, they need to go after the Air Force, for failing to report the shooter's disqualifying background.


:iagree:
Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1
Si vis pacem, para bellum


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

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

Postby ninjabread » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:09 pm

I hope Academy recovers their legal fees from the vultures.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar

jmorris
Senior Member
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:41 pm
Location: Cibolo
Contact:

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

Postby jmorris » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:09 pm

bblhd672 wrote:
Jusme wrote:If they want to sue someone, they need to go after the Air Force, for failing to report the shooter's disqualifying background.


:iagree:


Lawyer in SA, name escapes me, advertises he's doing so and for those affected to contact him.
Jay E Morris
Guardian Firearm Training, NRA Pistol, LTC
NRA Lifetime/Recuiter
Cibolo, TX


roadkill
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:48 pm

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

Postby roadkill » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:33 pm

jmorris wrote:
bblhd672 wrote:
Jusme wrote:If they want to sue someone, they need to go after the Air Force, for failing to report the shooter's disqualifying background.


:iagree:


Lawyer in SA, name escapes me, advertises he's doing so and for those affected to contact him.

Local big truck accident ambulance chaser Thomas J Henry was calling for an investigation into how he slppped thru the cracks. Wasn’t him was it?

User avatar

jmorris
Senior Member
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:41 pm
Location: Cibolo
Contact:

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

Postby jmorris » Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:53 pm

roadkill wrote:
jmorris wrote:
bblhd672 wrote:
Jusme wrote:If they want to sue someone, they need to go after the Air Force, for failing to report the shooter's disqualifying background.


:iagree:


Lawyer in SA, name escapes me, advertises he's doing so and for those affected to contact him.

Local big truck accident ambulance chaser Thomas J Henry was calling for an investigation into how he slipped thru the cracks. Wasn’t him was it?


That's him.
Jay E Morris
Guardian Firearm Training, NRA Pistol, LTC
NRA Lifetime/Recuiter
Cibolo, TX

User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

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

Postby G.A. Heath » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:11 am

Unless the shooter told the gun store something to the effect of "I need to buy a gun so I can go kill a bunch of people" then the Federal PLCAA act also comes into play. I hate it when I hear about an attorney filing a case like this because he leaves HIS victims a huge legal bill for the defendant's expenses.
I am also a Gun guy, Car Guy, and Computer Guy and a currently former podcaster.


OneGun
Senior Member
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:22 am
Location: Houston

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

Postby OneGun » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:09 pm

apostate wrote:
Texas prohibits the sale of firearms to non-residents.

Please cite the law that prohibits a Texas based FFL from selling a rifle to a US citizen who isn't a Texas resident.


Did some more research. On the ATF FAQ page, it states:
May an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA in any State?

Generally, a person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State. Exceptions include the acquisition pursuant to a lawful bequest, or an over–the–counter acquisition of a rifle or shotgun from a licensee where the transaction is allowed by the purchaser’s State of residence and the licensee’s State of business. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.


Unless there is a specific Texas law that prohibits such a transaction, Academy did not break any law. I did read the civil suit filed against Academy. The Plaintiffs' attorney does not cite or reference any specific Texas or Federal law, statute or regulation that was violated. The Plaintiffs' attorney is in this for the settlement value. I hope Academy fights rather than settle. Settling would set a bad precedent.
Annoy a Liberal, GET A JOB!


dlh
Senior Member
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:16 pm

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

Postby dlh » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:38 pm

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?

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 23454
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

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

Postby The Annoyed Man » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:38 pm

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.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


Return to “The Crime Blotter”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests