How A Federal Law Protecting Gun Companies Could Fail
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 5 months ago
A gun-violence victim’s family is hoping the mother of the man who fatally shot their relative will strengthen their case against two firearms dealers in an Oregon court.
Kirsten Englund, a 57-year-old California woman, was fatally shot in April 2013 at a scenic overlook in Oregon while on her way to visit relatives. After 30-year-old Jeffrey Boyce killed Englund, he drove to northern California and carjacked two different drivers before police arrested him. Two months later, while awaiting his arraignment, Boyce killed himself in jail.
On Thursday, the gunman’s mother, Diane Boyce, agreed to help the family with its wrongful death lawsuit against two retailers that sold her guns, despite originally being named in the lawsuit.
In the complaint, Englund’s two sons and sister accuse Diane Boyce of acting as a straw purchaser by buying an AK-47 rifle and two handguns for her son in 2011 and 2012. A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person to execute the paperwork necessary to complete the purchase through a federally licensed dealer. By intentionally buying guns for someone else, straw purchasers thwart the background checks system and thus may allow firearms to be funneled to criminals, domestic abusers and other individuals who pose a risk to public safety.
Jeffrey Boyce, who lawyers say was not legally allowed to own guns because he had a criminal record at the time of his mother’s first purchase, used one of the three firearms to murder Englund, according to the lawsuit. He had never met Englund before he killed her, shooting her at close range, pouring gasoline over her body, lighting her on fire and then shooting her once more, the complaint says.
The suit says J&G Sales, an online firearms and ammunition retailer in Arizona, sold the two pistols, which were then shipped to World Pawn Exchange (WPE) in North Bend, Oregon, for Boyce to claim. A Minnesota dealer sold the AK-47 and also shipped to WPE. After his arrest, Boyce told law enforcement officials that he used one of the pistols to kill Englund, the complaint says.
[ … ]
The lawsuit alleges that the retailers had reason to know the guns were being purchased by a straw buyer—but still allowed the sales to proceed—and that J&G and WPE’s negligence caused Englund’s death. The suit describes an invoice that allegedly identifies Jeffrey Boyce as the buyer.
I don’t know any more details about the case. But it isn’t good enough that Remington was on the hook (pardon the pun) for Sandy Hook and then wisely let go because of the federal law, and it doesn’t matter that the dealer (WPE) apparently didn’t do their due diligence in selling the firearms (if indeed that is the case, and I don’t know that it is).
No, this parent wants more. She wants to shut down a distributor who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime. When the law fails their desire for “social justice,” progressives always turn to the court, where single individuals (or malleable juries) can effectively rewrite the law for them.
Progressives were outraged at acquittal of the Bundy brothers. Jury nullification is outrageous in this case because the Bundy brothers challenged the fedgov, but as for gun laws, if it works for them then it’s a good thing. Because the only good law is one which aids the social justice warriors in their quest to become god.
On October 31, 2016 at 7:25 am, Frank Clarke said:
So they’re accusing the dealers of making a “straw sale”. I’ve been wrong before, but I’m pretty sure the law isn’t written that way…
On October 31, 2016 at 9:41 am, Herschel Smith said:
Right. Of course it’s not. The law was written precisely to protect companies like this.
On October 31, 2016 at 8:32 am, Fred said:
I couldn’t even finish the article. It reads like a soap opera written for idiots. There was a crime, the criminal went to jail. I’m not a lawyer but I do know that the rest of it has not basis in making sense
On October 31, 2016 at 9:56 am, Houston said:
Regardless. If it can be proved that the perps mother, knowing it was illegal for her son to have possession, bought and gave these guns to her son. She and she alone is the guilty party and charges need to be brought up against her. No where in this article did I see any mention of this. Neither the retailer who had the mother fill out the legal form nor the distributor have any liability for this.
On October 31, 2016 at 12:11 pm, Archer said:
Right. Assisting in suing the distributors and sellers doesn’t assuage her criminal liability; it merely attempts to shift it to someone else.
It’s almost like saying, “Sure, I robbed that bank, but I shouldn’t be held responsible because I wouldn’t have done it if they didn’t have money there.”
I don’t see how this will fly, except that this is Oregon, the only state in the Union that came out of the 2014 elections even bluer than it was going in. There’s no telling what the courts will do.
On November 1, 2016 at 3:41 pm, milesfortis said:
“There’s no telling what the courts will do.”
My best guess is that the case will proceed along the lines of the recent case against Remington et al..
The judge will let all the lawyers “wet their beaks” for awhile and then dismiss the case, citing the PLCAA as controlling.
It’s the closest they can now come to the ‘lawfare’ that was the reason the PLCAA was passed to stop.
The circuit court judges who ‘like’ to have their rulings reversed by Appeals Courts, except for those hacks with political agendas (and even then) are few and far between.
It’s seen as detrimental to their possible advancement to higher courts with more pay and perqs.