Lawsuit against Armslist! Funded/backed by the Brady Campaign.

[Lex Concord]

The Constitution doesn't stop anyone. A fair Judiciary shouldn't allow it and I think most of the States would not approve either.

The 'loophole' is an intrastate transaction between private parties. The Feds have no role. They can and do pressure the individual States like they do with seat belt laws.

An FFL can do interstate transactions and that is why they are subject to federal regulations.

While, in theory, I consider you to be correct, in practice, it doesn't matter.

What the Constitution allows and what the Congress passes don't necessarily jibe.

Refer to the '94 ban...it was any weapon that has ever traveled in interstate commerce or contains any component part that has ever traveled in interstate commerce.

Unless all parts of a firearm were originally manufactured in your state (assuming they don't intend to go as far back as the raw materials entrance into the supply stream...iron ore, raw plastics, etc.), the feds will consider your firearm to be covered by the ban, Constitutional or not.

Your comment about a fair judiciary assumes 1) such a thing exists and 2) people should be willing to be test cases and risk their life and liberty.

 

[Notavictim646]

The 'loophole' is an intrastate transaction between private parties. The Feds have no role. They can and do pressure the individual States like they do with seat belt laws.

OK, I am following you (maybe). So, unless it is a specifically regulated item (silencers etc.) our state would have to "fall in line" and pass laws restricting sales between one another, otherwise it would remain business as usual, as far as gun sales go.

 

[TheWabbit]

While, in theory, I consider you to be correct, in practice, it doesn't matter.

Wrong legal issue Lex. This thread is about the Armslist lawsuit and the federal role in private intrastate transactions (FTF).

The Assault Weapon Ban and confiscation is an entirely different legal issue.

 

[TheWabbit]

OK, I am following you (maybe). So, unless it is a specifically regulated item (silencers etc.) our state would have to "fall in line" and pass laws restricting sales between one another, otherwise it would remain business as usual, as far as gun sales go.

Exactly. What they probably would do is pull all DHS funds for Indiana and other things to 'punish' us. They got seat belt laws passed by withholding Dept of Transportation money.

 

[Notavictim646]

Exactly. What they probably would do is pull all DHS funds for Indiana and other things to 'punish' us. They got seat belt laws passed by withholding Dept of Transportation money.

So it appears further regulation is the most immediate threat. Like expanding the list of guns on the NFA list. If possession of an item becomes regulated, it could be just as easily restricted right? What has to happen in order to add items to the list?

 

[Pinchaser]

Unfortunately, Armslist likely doesn't have a legal "team" at all. It's just kid who started a website that took off. This is exactly what kills small businesses. More than almost anything else, we need tort reform in this country. Such lawsuits should never be allowed to see the light of day. However, as we all know, that's not in the best $$$ interest of the courts or lawyers.

 

[KoopaKGB]

UPDATE.
Case dismissed!

The Volokh Conspiracy » Brady Campaign Lawsuit Against Armslist Dismissed

Heres a brief of what the court said...
"This argument is speculative at best. The Court does not accept as true Plaintiffs mere conclusion that Defendant encourages its users to circumvent existing gun laws by enabling prospective purchasers to state. As Defendant points out, “[a] person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.” United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms — Frequently Asked Questions — Unlicensed Persons, Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons | ATF (citing 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), (b)(3)) (last visited July 26, 2013)....
Furthermore, the magnitude of the burden that Plaintiff seeks to impose on Defendant of guarding against illegal gun sales, by altering its business practice to become involved in sales transactions between third-parties, is immense and, as Defendant suggests, would effectively put it out of business. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant owes no duty to the general public to operate its website to control private individual users’ sale of handguns."

 

[searpinski]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[g00n24]

UPDATE.
Case dismissed!

The Volokh Conspiracy » Brady Campaign Lawsuit Against Armslist Dismissed

Heres a brief of what the court said...
"This argument is speculative at best. The Court does not accept as true Plaintiffs mere conclusion that Defendant encourages its users to circumvent existing gun laws by enabling prospective purchasers to state. As Defendant points out, “[a] person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.” United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms — Frequently Asked Questions — Unlicensed Persons, Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons | ATF (citing 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), (b)(3)) (last visited July 26, 2013)....
Furthermore, the magnitude of the burden that Plaintiff seeks to impose on Defendant of guarding against illegal gun sales, by altering its business practice to become involved in sales transactions between third-parties, is immense and, as Defendant suggests, would effectively put it out of business. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant owes no duty to the general public to operate its website to control private individual users’ sale of handguns."

Excellent!

 

[j706]

The only person at fault here is is the gun that pulled the trigger

 

[Mgderf]

The only person at fault here is is the gun that pulled the trigger

I know a person named Gunn. I'll tel him you said this is all his fault.

BTW- He does carry.

 

[Enkrypter]

I wouldn't sue craigslist if I got an STD from a hooker I met on there... Seems the person I got the STD from would be at fault, or better yet, me. But hey, that's just my hypothetical opinion.

 

[Dauvis]

The Federal Government has the power to regulate certain things (even though it tries to push it) because of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.​

The Federal Government has NO power to regulate commerce within a State. And the 10th Ammendment states everything not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the States and People.

This is where Indiana Senate Bill 130 will come in. They are reminding the Feds that Indiana commerce belongs to Indiana.

“Whereas, the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and reserves for the states all powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution, and reserves to the state and people of Indiana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Indiana was admitted to statehood in 1816.”​

Congress would have required a FFL for all transactions a long time ago if they could have done so. This is why Indiana is responsible for State Roads and the Feds control the Interstate Highways.

Interstate aka 'among the several States' - Feds
Intrastate - Not Feds

SCOTUS has already neutered that argument (link). The man in that case was not even engaging in commerce. A similar ruling was issued by them recently under Bush II when that argument was used for medical marijuana (link).

 

[IndyGunSafety]

 

[bauerr3]

Armslist definitely shouldn't be in trouble for this...the website is only a middle man connecting interested buyers and willing sellers; it isn't their job to know what the item is going to be used for. Not only are there disclaimers on this, but that should also be the responsibility of the seller (to an extent). If someone is willing to pay an extra $200 for your handgun, that should be a little suspicious. Obviously the seller was probably excited to be making so much extra money, but that had to be a little puzzling...am I wrong?

 

[yepthatsme]

Armslist definitely shouldn't be in trouble for this...the website is only a middle man connecting interested buyers and willing sellers; it isn't their job to know what the item is going to be used for. Not only are there disclaimers on this, but that should also be the responsibility of the seller (to an extent). If someone is willing to pay an extra $200 for your handgun, that should be a little suspicious. Obviously the seller was probably excited to be making so much extra money, but that had to be a little puzzling...am I wrong?

I think you need to be extremely careful about placing the blame of a criminals actions on a seller. I know most people are as careful as possible when selling weapons, but we should not be blamed for how the weapon is used once it is no longer in our possession. This is another slippery slope. This type of reasoning can eventually lead to retailers being responsible for selling knives to those who would use the knives as weapons. Or for gun owners who have had their weapons stolen and those weapons used in crimes. The person who commits a criminal act is responsible for their own action.

Just my (of course some people think I'm nuts as well).

 

[ckcollins2003]

Armslist definitely shouldn't be in trouble for this...the website is only a middle man connecting interested buyers and willing sellers; it isn't their job to know what the item is going to be used for. Not only are there disclaimers on this, but that should also be the responsibility of the seller (to an extent). If someone is willing to pay an extra $200 for your handgun, that should be a little suspicious. Obviously the seller was probably excited to be making so much extra money, but that had to be a little puzzling...am I wrong?

During the panic we seen $700 AR-15's go for $1,500-$2,000 and $12 Pmags selling for $60 a piece. Why would it be suspicious that someone is willing to pay an extra $200 for this mans firearm while people are willing to pay more than double for others? Why should the seller be at all responsible for what someone else does with their item? If you sell your car to a person who then goes out and gets wasted and kills someone on their way home from the bar, are you as responsible for that death as much as the person who drank the alcohol and made the choice to drive afterwards?

IMO the person who commits the crime should be the one held responsible. This man is an adult and is/was fully capable of making his own decisions and committed murder while knowing the consequences of his actions. Nobody except that man is at fault.

 

[bauerr3]

During the panic we seen $700 AR-15's go for $1,500-$2,000 and $12 Pmags selling for $60 a piece. Why would it be suspicious that someone is willing to pay an extra $200 for this mans firearm while people are willing to pay more than double for others? Why should the seller be at all responsible for what someone else does with their item? If you sell your car to a person who then goes out and gets wasted and kills someone on their way home from the bar, are you as responsible for that death as much as the person who drank the alcohol and made the choice to drive afterwards?

IMO the person who commits the crime should be the one held responsible. This man is an adult and is/was fully capable of making his own decisions and committed murder while knowing the consequences of his actions. Nobody except that man is at fault.

You make a very good point, and I agree 100%...I wasn't trying to convince anyone that the man who committed the crime was innocent, I was just pointing out that the seller might have been able to take some other precautions when selling to prevent this from happening...but I suppose that doesn't get us anywhere either.

I admit defeat.

 

[KoopaKGB]

Armslist definitely shouldn't be in trouble for this...the website is only a middle man connecting interested buyers and willing sellers; it isn't their job to know what the item is going to be used for. Not only are there disclaimers on this, but that should also be the responsibility of the seller (to an extent). If someone is willing to pay an extra $200 for your handgun, that should be a little suspicious. Obviously the seller was probably excited to be making so much extra money, but that had to be a little puzzling...am I wrong?

You make a very good point, and I agree 100%...I wasn't trying to convince anyone that the man who committed the crime was innocent, I was just pointing out that the seller might have been able to take some other precautions when selling to prevent this from happening...but I suppose that doesn't get us anywhere either.

I admit defeat.

You sir clearly did not read the case, or even the op for that matter... The murderer informed the man selling the gun that he was in fact a Canadian citizen and prohibited from purchasing a firearm in the US. To which the seller asked for an additional $200 which would make it "worth his while" to illegally sell the gun. He sold him the gun, the loon goes to hunt down his ex, kills her and later tells police where he got the gun. The seller is punished under the law for an illegal sell and then the victim's family tries to sue Armslist for brokering the deal.

 

[joncon]

Armslist is blameless, but the seller needs to go to jail for knowingly selling a firearm to a prohibited person.