TexasCHLforum.com

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:00 pm

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 ).

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:00 pmWait... 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 ).

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:00 pmWait... 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?

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.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:37 pm I think the Academy situation is a prime example of why some companies decide to err on the side of caution and set company policies so it would be easier to keep within the law. I would not blame a company for establishing a company policy of only selling to someone with a valid in state ID considering how difficult it is to keep up with all the different states' laws.

Another example would be a company setting the age for all ammo at 21 due to the difficulty of proving they were satisfied the ammo was going to be used in a rifle instead of a handgun and the purchaser was between 18-21.

Just can't rely on typical retail clerks to be that well versed in the various states' law and always making the right judgement.

Boxerrider wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:53 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:37 pm I think the Academy situation is a prime example of why some companies decide to err on the side of caution and set company policies so it would be easier to keep within the law. I would not blame a company for establishing a company policy of only selling to someone with a valid in state ID considering how difficult it is to keep up with all the different states' laws.

Another example would be a company setting the age for all ammo at 21 due to the difficulty of proving they were satisfied the ammo was going to be used in a rifle instead of a handgun and the purchaser was between 18-21.

Just can't rely on typical retail clerks to be that well versed in the various states' law and always making the right judgement.

I agree, and if this is allowed to continue it will steadily get worse. Byzantine regulations nobody can make sense out of and everyone is afraid of violating. This is how we get de facto infringement.

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.

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.

Kelley, a veteran, had a history of domestic abuse and other violent behavior that the U.S. Air Force admitted it failed to report to a federal criminal database, allowing him to purchase his weapons without raising red flags. In a December report, the Air Force said it failed on six occasions to report information that would have prevented Kelley from legally purchasing a gun.