Validity of Protection of Lawful Commerce Act tested in AK Supreme Court Case

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/03/2729988/alaskas-supreme-court-reviews.html

.
Alaska's Supreme Court reviews federal gun-shop liability law

Posted on Tuesday, 04.03.12

By SEAN COCKERHAM
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- A Bush-era federal law that protects gun dealers from being liable for murders committed with guns from their shops is under fire in an Alaska court case that has led the Justice Department and gun-control activists to intervene.

At issue is whether a Juneau gun dealer is liable for letting a disheveled homeless felon leave his store with a rifle he used to murder a total stranger. The family of the murder victim, Anchorage contractor Simone Kim, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit that has made it to the Alaska Supreme Court.

The Kims are challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which effectively protects the gun industry from most lawsuits.
.

.

 

[gc70]

While it is sweet to contemplate Obama administration lawyers defending a pro-gun law, I think it is cruel for the Bradys to encourage the Kim family to believe they have any sort of a case.

 

[Cosmoline]

FYI here's the oral argument with the fab five:

http://gavelalaska.org/media/?media_id=AKSC120228B

It's an interesting case, but maybe more to me that you. The plaintiffs are arguing that the "theft" was a de facto sale and that the statute doesn't protect him on their version of the facts. The plaintiffs may have screwed up in not getting an on-point affidavit to counter the points raised by the moving party. A lot of the Court's focus is on the convoluted MSJ standard in Alaska, and I don't know that this attorney really understood it. Nobody really does, as the opinions have been contradictory.

The high court doesn't seem too interested in the big federal legal issues, and my bet is they will avoid that mess one way or the other.

 

[JohnBT]

Did the shop owner report the gun stolen or did he just quietly keep the $200? I haven't seen that discussed.

The guy walked in, looked at some guns, and reportedly left $200 on the counter and walked out with the rifle while the owner's back was turned or he was in the back room, etc.

Neither one of the two video cameras was working that day. Drat.

John

 

[Cosmoline]

Yeah it was reported to the police, but the shop didn't handle it as well as it should have.

The "drat" you mention is the crux of the main issue before the court. Can the mere suspicion of a fishy tale be sufficient to take a case to trial? Nobody has come forward to directly refute the claim that the firearm was stolen with no complicity by the shop. But the plaintiffs believe there's an odor to the story. Is that enough to stop summary judgment? The Court has seemed to say yes in some cases, but no in others.

 

[alsaqr]

According to Coxe the homeless man looked at the gun and asked the price. Coxe turned to take care of other business. Coxe later found $200 on the counter: The gun was missing along with the homeless man. If Coxe reported the missing gun to the police and/or the BATFE he should not be liable. If no report was made; thats another matter.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/03/v-print/3869981/alaskas-supreme-court-reviews.html

Coxe showed Coday several rifles, including a $195 Ruger. Coday, who was not legally allowed to possess a firearm, said he would think about it. The gun-shop owner said he went to the rear of his store to take care of other things after Coday picked up his backpack as if to leave.

Coday, meanwhile, left two $100 bills on the counter and walked away with the rifle, which he later sawed off.

 

[Cosmoline]

He did report it, that's not disputed. But he also deposited the money in the store's account. Not too smart.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Reporting it good, keeping the money, not good.



I wonder how this case will pan out.
.

 

[General Geoff]

eh, keeping the $200 and even depositing it into the store's account could simply be construed as collateral to be given back upon return of the rifle...

 

[Cosmoline]

But there you have the potential issue of fact.

I'm pretty sure the five are going to send it back down over issues of fact and not mess with the federal issue now. Their plate is real full. In fact they've had me waiting TWO YEARS for a ruling in one appeal I've got lodged with them.