"Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

1
Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia
The suit by the victim’s family contends that Cabela’s – a defendant along with Klocek and the Elma couple – “knew or should have known its failure to use reasonable care” in selling the ammunition to someone like Klocek would result in serious injury or death.

But that claim hinges on the fact that Klocek, under 21 at the time, could not legally buy handgun ammunition.

However, he could legally buy long gun ammunition. And as Cabela’s attorneys point out, the ammunition in question – .45 ACP – can be used in both handguns and rifles. If the clerk asks and the buyer says it’s for a rifle, how is the store supposed to know, short of having a polygraph machine at every register?

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

3
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 8:47 pm Seems to me that the law is clear: .45 ACP is handgun ammo and any rifle that uses it is...a pistol-caliber carbine.
Does the law make sense? I won't take that on, but the law seems pretty clear. And Cabela's should have refused the sale...
If I am entitled to own said rifle, I should be able to buy ammunition for it. period. that the ammunition typically is used in handguns should be irrelevant. I own the rifle, the rifle is 45acp, I should be able to buy ammunition for it.

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

4
308Scout wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:12 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 8:47 pm Seems to me that the law is clear: .45 ACP is handgun ammo and any rifle that uses it is...a pistol-caliber carbine.
Does the law make sense? I won't take that on, but the law seems pretty clear. And Cabela's should have refused the sale...
If I am entitled to own said rifle, I should be able to buy ammunition for it. period. that the ammunition typically is used in handguns should be irrelevant. I own the rifle, the rifle is 45acp, I should be able to buy ammunition for it.
That's not my point--I'm not defending whether the law is smart or stupid, fair or unfair. Frankly, I don't understand how ANY limits that discriminate against under-21 adults doesn't violate the 26th Amendment, including alcohol. But that's not the point. As an FFL in New York State, Cabela's is expected to know the state's firearm laws and to follow them. They didn't. That is why they are liable. Seems open-and-shut, like it or not.

Clearly, handgun ammo is forbidden to under-21s in NYS, and clearly the ammo Cabela sold him is hand-gun ammo. The fact that it fits a PCC is irrelevant. I have 3 PCCs and a .308. Two PCCs are chambered in 9mm, the other in .357 mag. To say 9mm or .357 isn't hand-gun ammo just can't pass the straight-faced test. In fact, that is EXACTLY why I have them--to share calibers with my hand-guns.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

5
Show me how California's ammo background check would have failed to catch this kid: you have to swipe your driver license or no ammo. No ammo that may go in a center fire hand gun can be sold to an under 21.

In California I just don't like the buck per purchase. I say a buck a year.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

7
CDFingers wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:06 am Show me how California's ammo background check would have failed to catch this kid: you have to swipe your driver license or no ammo. No ammo that may go in a center fire hand gun can be sold to an under 21.

In California I just don't like the buck per purchase. I say a buck a year.

CDFingers
So you can't sell him .308, 5.56, .223, or any other ammo that can go in a pistol with a brace?

It's a bad law.

Cabela's shouldnt' be held accountable for this kid's actions. If he had shot up people with a .30-06 would that have made the people less dead?

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

8
NegativeApproach wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:43 am
CDFingers wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:06 am Show me how California's ammo background check would have failed to catch this kid: you have to swipe your driver license or no ammo. No ammo that may go in a center fire hand gun can be sold to an under 21.

In California I just don't like the buck per purchase. I say a buck a year.

CDFingers
So you can't sell him .308, 5.56, .223, or any other ammo that can go in a pistol with a brace?

It's a bad law.

Cabela's shouldnt' be held accountable for this kid's actions. If he had shot up people with a .30-06 would that have made the people less dead?
That isn't how it worked at the big box store near me. Only clear pistol ammo was restricted.

Now, admittedly this law here has caused tons of unnecessary heartache. For people who don't move often, don't break the law, and have a physical address have no problem. I think some kind of license would solve problems, like a driver license. In CA you have to pass the background check; in a new system, the person's driver license or valid state ID would be swiped, and then it would hook to the cloud to see if the person had been convicted of anything that would negate it. If the ID is hooked to the cloud, no physical address at the time of purchase would be needed. Renew every like five years. Ideas. Just ideas.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

9
NegativeApproach wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:43 am
CDFingers wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:06 am Show me how California's ammo background check would have failed to catch this kid: you have to swipe your driver license or no ammo. No ammo that may go in a center fire hand gun can be sold to an under 21.

In California I just don't like the buck per purchase. I say a buck a year.

CDFingers
So you can't sell him .308, 5.56, .223, or any other ammo that can go in a pistol with a brace?

It's a bad law.

Cabela's shouldnt' be held accountable for this kid's actions. If he had shot up people with a .30-06 would that have made the people less dead?
Of COURSE it's a bad law! I'm not disputing that!

Besides, since NY is even more restrictive than NJ, I'm guessing that, like NJ, pistol braces are ALSO illegal, so that argument doesn't hold water.

I believe SBRs are illegal as well. AR-15 pistols are clearly illegal in NJ--Box magazines MUST go thru the pistol grip.

The only .308 pistol I know of (and my knowledge is admittedly limited and NOT great) is a single-shot.

Cabela's is obligated to know the law in the states it operates in. If it doesn't obey that state's laws, the results leave them liable. And, no, if this young man had bought .223 and shot someone either deliberately or accidentally then, yes, fair or unfair, they would not be liable.

It's a pretty straight-forward legal principle: If it can be shown you didn't follow the law, didn't take "reasonable" actions ("reasonable" as defined by the courts), you ARE liable--and that has nothing to do with guns at all. When I was a pool forum moderator, I ALWAYS advised people not to put up a pool without getting proper building permits, because their home-owner insurance would NOT cover them in case of an accident.

It doesn't mean I LIKE the situation. But not liking it is meaningless.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

10
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:45 am
NegativeApproach wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:43 am
CDFingers wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:06 am Show me how California's ammo background check would have failed to catch this kid: you have to swipe your driver license or no ammo. No ammo that may go in a center fire hand gun can be sold to an under 21.

In California I just don't like the buck per purchase. I say a buck a year.

CDFingers
So you can't sell him .308, 5.56, .223, or any other ammo that can go in a pistol with a brace?

It's a bad law.

Cabela's shouldnt' be held accountable for this kid's actions. If he had shot up people with a .30-06 would that have made the people less dead?
Of COURSE it's a bad law! I'm not disputing that!

Besides, since NY is even more restrictive than NJ, I'm guessing that, like NJ, pistol braces are ALSO illegal, so that argument doesn't hold water.

I believe SBRs are illegal as well. AR-15 pistols are clearly illegal in NJ--Box magazines MUST go thru the pistol grip.

The only .308 pistol I know of (and my knowledge is admittedly limited and NOT great) is a single-shot.

Cabela's is obligated to know the law in the states it operates in. If it doesn't obey that state's laws, the results leave them liable. And, no, if this young man had bought .223 and shot someone either deliberately or accidentally then, yes, fair or unfair, they would not be liable.

It's a pretty straight-forward legal principle: If it can be shown you didn't follow the law, didn't take "reasonable" actions ("reasonable" as defined by the courts), you ARE liable--and that has nothing to do with guns at all. When I was a pool forum moderator, I ALWAYS advised people not to put up a pool without getting proper building permits, because their home-owner insurance would NOT cover them in case of an accident.

It doesn't mean I LIKE the situation. But not liking it is meaningless.
Yeah, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I don't know the specific law in the other states (only my own) around ammo, braces, etc... As it doesn't effect me.

So I give you the point on most of it, but still... someone would be no less dead with a rifle round, than a pistol round. It's asinine.


It's like the Catholic Charities adoption case going against Philadelphia now in the Supreme Court case.

Contract law should be upheld, and Catholic Charities agreed not to discriminate. They chose to discriminate against same sex couples and their contract got revoked to the tune of millions of dollars. They should have to abide by the contracts they signed.

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

11
NegativeApproach wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:01 am Yeah, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I don't know the specific law in the other states (only my own) around ammo, braces, etc... As it doesn't effect me.

So I give you the point on most of it, but still... someone would be no less dead with a rifle round, than a pistol round. It's asinine.


It's like the Catholic Charities adoption case going against Philadelphia now in the Supreme Court case.

Contract law should be upheld, and Catholic Charities agreed not to discriminate. They chose to discriminate against same sex couples and their contract got revoked to the tune of millions of dollars. They should have to abide by the contracts they signed.
Oh, I agree 100% it's asinine. Yes, someone WOULD be just as dead from a rifle round.

I generally agree that contracts need to be abided by. Only when someone is coerced (Sign this ridiculously bad contract or no job!) and has no alternative, do I question contract law. (like forced arbitration from cell companies as one of a gazillion examples)

And NJ does have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, along with California, Massachusetts, and NY. I MOSTLY know most of the NJ laws, other than some fine points, and am awaiting 2 pistol purchase permits to be approved...May get approval in January--that really sucks as I already have a Firearm Purchase ID that required all kinds of background checks and fingerprinting and should be enough.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

12
...If the clerk asks and the buyer says it’s for a rifle, how is the store supposed to know...?
From the article, that's the question there. Does the law state 45 ammo is handgun ammo or is it up to the clerk to ask "is this for a handgun?"

Even if they can prove in court the clerk was supposed to ask and didn't I would hope consideration would be given to this being a mistake or are there further instances indicating there is a disregard of the law.

Personally, it is a stupid law and I think in this instance Cabela's actions were negligible in the shooting.

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

14
wings wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:46 pm Consider .22LR - is it rifle ammo, or handgun? Yes. Any court precedent here regarding .45 ACP applies to .22LR because it can be used in either.

Distinguishing between "handgun ammo" and "long gun ammo" without delineating what constitutes either creates a degree of uncertainty that favors a defendant. We're not likely to appreciate the obvious solution, though.
I’ve been thinking the same.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

15
Frankly, I haven't been able to find where NY defines handgun ammunition other than ammunition exclusively for handguns, which is a fact I was unaware of. If so, I have to reverse my position and say Cabela's has a totally defendable case. Does anyone know of ANY ammunition that, while designed for a handgun (like 9mm) doesn't have an analogous PCC?

Rational people willingly alter opinions and positions when facts appear that contradict those original positions.

Or as my wife would say: "Well, if you're gonna cheat and hit me with LOGIC!....."
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

17
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:04 am Frankly, I haven't been able to find where NY defines handgun ammunition other than ammunition exclusively for handguns, which is a fact I was unaware of. If so, I have to reverse my position and say Cabela's has a totally defendable case. Does anyone know of ANY ammunition that, while designed for a handgun (like 9mm) doesn't have an analogous PCC?

Rational people willingly alter opinions and positions when facts appear that contradict those original positions.

Or as my wife would say: "Well, if you're gonna cheat and hit me with LOGIC!....."
9mm Luger was also used in machine guns, Suomi konepistooli for one.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

18
YankeeTarheel wrote:Frankly, I haven't been able to find where NY defines handgun ammunition other than ammunition exclusively for handguns, which is a fact I was unaware of. If so, I have to reverse my position and say Cabela's has a totally defendable case. Does anyone know of ANY ammunition that, while designed for a handgun (like 9mm) doesn't have an analogous PCC?

Rational people willingly alter opinions and positions when facts appear that contradict those original positions.

Or as my wife would say: "Well, if you're gonna cheat and hit me with LOGIC!....."
The easy button for this is to look on the outside of the box. Just a cursory look at my stash, and most have “Handgun Ammunition” printed on them (didn’t dig thru everything, but you get the idea).

Not saying I agree with the law, or how it’s written, especially if you toss .22LR into the mix. And the only .38/.357 gun I own is an 1894 Marlin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

19
I’m pretty sure one could create a rifle based on any handgun or rifle cartridge vice versa. Sometimes it makes might make sense other times you get whack. I really don’t see the value of these type of laws. The offenders are a minuscule fraction of those intent on violence. Perhaps looking at why they are violent might have better results.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re:

20
jbjh wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:50 pmAnd the only .38/.357 gun I own is an 1894 Marlin.
I have 3 handguns and 4 rifles. The 41 year-old 1894 Marlin in .357/.38 is simply the most fun to shoot of any of them!
MarlinLeft.jpg
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."
Attachments
MarlinLever.jpg

Re:

22
jbjh wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:42 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
jbjh wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:50 pmAnd the only .38/.357 gun I own is an 1894 Marlin.
I have 3 handguns and 4 rifles. The 41 year-old 1894 Marlin in .357/.38 is simply the most fun to shoot of any of them!

MarlinLeft.jpg
Agreed! It’s without a doubt my favorite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I put a split-rail on it so I can still shoot with the iron sights or mount an optic.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "Column: Cabela's ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia"

23
Most handgun calibers can be fired through some sort of rifle or carbine. The exceptions seem to fall into two classes:

Small bore pistols - .25 and .32 ACP
Large bore revolvers - .454, .460, .480
jbjh wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:50 pm The easy button for this is to look on the outside of the box. Just a cursory look at my stash, and most have “Handgun Ammunition” printed on them (didn’t dig thru everything, but you get the idea).
Now, if we let the manufacturers decide this, you know what's going to happen. The label is going to suddenly, quietly, and conveniently disappear.

Not that there's a problem with that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: offensivename and 3 guests