AUSTIN, Texas (Legal Newsline) – The firearms store that sold the gun used to kill more than 20 people at a Texas church in 2017 can’t be sued by the victims’ families.
On June 25, the Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief sought by Academy Sports + Outdoors, which sought immunity from litigation under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That law protects retailers and manufacturers from lawsuits arising out of the criminal conduct of third parties.
In this case, that third party is Devin Kelley. He killed 26 people and injured 20 others at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs after buying a Model 8500 Ruger AR-556 rifle from Academy.
Kelley was a former member of the United States Air Force with a violent streak that included abuse of his first wife and her toddler.
That information should have prevented Kelley from legally purchasing firearms, but the Air Force failed to enter it into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Lawsuits against the Air Force continue in federal court.
Academy properly processed the required form and conducted the appropriate background check, the Texas Supreme Court ruled. The company was facing nine cases that involve more than 75 plaintiffs.
The cases also allege Academy wasn’t supposed to sell Kelley a 30-round magazine but Colorado law (Kelley presented a Colorado ID) only allows the sale of magazines that hold 15 or fewer rounds.
Nothing Academy or its employees did triggered exceptions to the PLCAA, Justice Debra Lehrmann wrote. The Gun Control Act only prohibits the sale of “firearms” that do not comply with home state rules – not magazines – she wrote.
“(T)hey argue that because the rifle Academy sold to Kelley was inseparably packaged with a large-capacity magazine, that ‘sale’ could not have occurred legally in Colorado,” Lehrmann wrote. “The plaintiffs further argue that a ‘firearm’ includes unlisted component parts like magazines ‘when they are packaged and sold together with the weapon itself.’
“We hold that the plaintiffs’ interpretation disregards the text and structure of both the PLCAA and the Gun Control Act, which denote a clear distinction between the treatment of firearms (as that term is statutorily defined) and magazines.”
Plaintiffs also argued the negligent-entrustment exception applied that would allow them to sue Academy, which successfully countered that Texas law does not recognize a negligent entrustment claim based on the sale of property.