Store cannot be sued for selling gun used for mass shooting

| June 28, 2021

This is the ruling that came down from the Texas Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. The Texas Supreme Court threw out lawsuits that were aimed at Academy Sports and Outdoors. This is where a gunman purchased the firearm that he used to shoot people at a church.

These lawsuits were initiated by the families of the shooting victims as well as by survivors. The origin of the events that would lead to this decision began when a man who shot churchgoers at a Texas church. This appeared to be the deadliest mass shooting in Texas.

From MSN News:

Kelley opened fire during Sunday morning services at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, killing 25 people, including a pregnant woman, and injuring 20 others. According to The Associated Press, he died from a self-inflicted gunshot.

His motive was not completely clear, however, authorities have said the shooting may have sprung from a domestic dispute, and that his mother-in-law was a member of First Baptist Church.

In response to the suits, Academy claimed it was shielded by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law in 2005, which protects firearms dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when a third party commits a crime using a legally purchased weapon.

Academy had asked State District Judge Karen H. Pozza to throw out the lawsuits, but Pozza ruled against the company.

In its ruling signed by Justice Debra Lehrmann, the high court granted the retailer a rare writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to grant the company’s summary judgment motion.

“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 found.

MSN News has more information here.

Category: Second Amendment

Comments (32)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mason says:

    The ambulance chasers are drooling over if they can get a court to buy this line of garbage reasoning. Get hurt or killed by a drunk driver? Sue Ford, the Ford dealership, the guy’s mechanic, Goodyear for selling him tires, and Shell for giving him the needed gas.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      You mean Michael Moore can’t sue McDonald’s for custodial interference because he hasn’t seen his toes since 1994?

    • gitarcarver says:

      Don’t we already do that by suing bars and restaurants for drunk drivers?

      • David says:

        No, there is a difference – bars are supposed to know/verify their customer is more or less fit to drive by law. Gun shops are required to run the background checks, but if it comes back clean or the statutory delay period passes, they are presumed to have done their pre-sale due diligence. NO manufacturer is responsible for criminal misuse of their product unless they are found to have encouraged such misuse.

        • Andy says:

          Isn’t the douche the Air Force failed to report on? If so, I would think a suit filed there would stand a better chance of a win.

        • gitarcarver says:

          With all due respect, I know what you are saying and the theory behind it.

          However, no one is holding people down and pouring copious amounts of alcohol down their throats.

          People make that decision themselves. Even people want to argue that people who are drunk have diminished capacity to make the decision, no one forced them to drink to the point of diminished capacity.

          The bar is serving a legal product and it is being used in a legal way.

          The difference is not the people who make the choices, but the size of their wallets.

          Lawyers go after the money, and not necessarily those who are actually responsible.

          • Anonymous says:

            Person who makes the dumb decision to do something is responsible for doing it. Thank you.

            No, left/libtards, society or The Man is not responsible when you or your favored buddies do something dumb because you like them and don’t like society or The Man.

      • rgr769 says:

        The politicians in most states, including Commiefornia, have enacted legislation barring dramshop lawsuits. They undoubtedly did so because politicians host many alcohol fueled campaign events and would be personally liable for the damage caused by drunk drivers heading out on the roads after one of their fundraisers. So, in many states one can’t effectively sue the bar or restaurant for serving a person who later causing a DUI accident. Some of the statutes have an exception for a business or activity which serves an obviously intoxicated person.

    • KoB says:

      As Dick the Butcher so eloquently stated in Bill Shakespeare’s Henry VI, “The FIRST (ht 2 Roh-Dog) thing we do…Let’s kill all of the lawers.”

      In my 60+ years of owning firearms, they hung out behind doors, in closets, over fireplace mantles, in/on nightstands, under pillows, in corners of rooms, gunracks, gun boxes, gun safes, holsters, belts, and where ever. Not a single one EVER had a self inflicted discharge. My only regrets is I never taught them how to swim, dog paddle, tread water and I never got around to buying them those little swimmy rings/floatation devices.

      BZ to this Judge for getting it right.

  2. SFC D says:

    You cannot sue a manufacturer of ANY product for damages or injury caused by deliberate and wilful misuse of the product. You cannot sue Hamilton Beach because Joe Bagodonuts tossed the toaster into the bathtub that his wife was in. Gun grabbers don’t stop to think that this type of protection isn’t unique to firearms. And you cannot sue the gun store for following the law. They checked all the boxes. The Air Force might have a little liability issue though.

    • USAFRetired says:

      DOD/USAF would seem to be culpable for not loading his conviction in the proper database where it would be visible during a routine background investigation.

    • Martinjmpr says:

      The Air Force will have zero liability because of sovereign immunity.

    • 5JC says:

      Academy doesn’t make guns. They sell them. It was still in contravention to Federal Law and the writ was fully justified.

  3. MI Ranger says:

    Now where they should sue is the Department of Defense, and the Air Force for not doing their job and properly denying this individual to be able to purchase the firearm in the first place. When it was shown that this guy had been kicked out of the AF for beating his wife and kid, that signaled all the ambulance chasers round up their posse!
    Is their anything in federal law that says the Air Force is not criminally negligent in failing to file the proper paperwork for individuals court martialed given bad conduct discharges? And for DoD failing to quality control them for ten years? I mean come on, quit blaming the airman first class and take some responsibility Generals (it’s not like it is your money)!

    • Martinjmpr says:

      Is their anything in federal law that says the Air Force is not criminally negligent in failing to file the proper paperwork for individuals court martialed given bad conduct discharges?

      Yes, it’s called Sovereign Immunity and it’s a legal concept that is much older than the United States.

      You’ll note that paragraph mentions the Federal Tort Claims Act but it’s not likely that would apply either.

      • rgr769 says:

        The source for sovereign immunity is the English Common Law principle that “the King can do no wrong” and, by extension, neither can his ministers and officers.

  4. Skippy says:

    Great Job…. Air Force for not doing your job
    And allowing this POS the opportunity to buy
    A gun because someone didn’t want to forward
    His info to the FBI

  5. AW1 Rod says:

    This was a no-brainer. Any other judgment would create a dangerously stupid precedent, resulting in lawsuits falling like autumn leaves and an end to commerce in the United States.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      Bingo. Who would the idiots in Chiraq sue? As most gun-wielders ain’t doing so IAW that pesky law thingy, blaming a store or distributer or manufacturer gets Kafkaesque at the jump.

      Weekend totals; 8 killed, 72 wounded

      • Anonymous says:

        Chiraq is the example Democrats need to say law-abiding people they want to coerce for “equity” shouldn’t have guns, comrade!

  6. USMC Steve says:

    I would really expect better from people in Texas. The thought processes that believed a retailer with no ability to control the actions of others after they buy a product is nothing short of mentally retarded.

    I would expect better or Texans. Did they all live in Austin or something?

    • David says:

      All it took was one lawyer, and Texas has them. Remember, the four largest cities in the state are either red or at best (DFW) purple.

      • Poetrooper says:

        I believe you meant the four largest cities are blue, didn’t you, David?

        • David says:

          Yep. Brain fart. Shouldn’t be allowed to comment at my advanced age… but I’m gonna.

          • Poetrooper says:

            Hey, David, ol’ Poe is going to complete his 80th evolution around ol’ Sol day after tomorrow and he feels more qualified to comment now than ever before.

            Wisdom truly does come with age–in my case primarily by looking back and saying,

            “I can’t believe I was ever stupid enough to do that…”


        • Thunderstixx says:

          What with the last “election” even the blue cities in Texas are losing their lock on libturd stupidity and going more toward the conservative side of the aisle.
          The last election held in Texas, a couple weeks ago were a complete sweep for the conservative side of the coin. Even the new legal immigrants and even the ones that have consistently voted commie for years.
          There is a decided shift going on across America right now and I honestly don’t think the commie party will be able to hold off the swamping of many upcoming elections.
          The people moving to Texas from the commie states are the conservative people as they abandon their previous state for a state that really makes a lot more sense.
          The Constitutional Carry law was signed into law last week and I can tell from the riders I get from the Austin Airport understand just what is really happening.
          Hopefully those commie states will break off to form their own country and go the way of the Dodo bird…..
          They damn sure deserve it….

          • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

            But as soon as they go bust they’ll be blaming us and demanding aid and as soon as that happens, I say SCREW ’EM!

          • USMC Steve says:

            I hope Thunderstixx is right. He probably is. That is why the social dems will continue to rig and steal elections until we make them bleed for it. Who cares how many voters you have when you can make more after the polls shut down.

  7. Hack Stone says:

    When politicians who release violent illegal aliens into the public who go on to commit additional felonies are held criminally responsible for the laws and policies that they enact, then maybe we can consider holding commercial vendors criminally responsible, but there have been more victims of bad political decisions than legal gun sales.

  8. Roh-Dog says:

    From what this video is demonstrating, the NFA is in jeopardy anyway. There is a new way to inorganically grow your own Em One Six.
    (Not responsible for any misapplications of technique or defoliant methods. Enjoy!)