Court Lets Lawsuit Filed Against Cabela’s for Selling Ammo to a 19-Year-Old Go Forward

At the same time that gun sales have skyrocketed as more Americans reach for a firearm to protect themselves from threats real and perceived, warning shots abound that should have gun rights advocates on edge.

The latest court ruling allowing a lawsuit against the Cabela’s store in Cheektowaga to proceed after it sold ammunition to then-19-year-old Jake Klocek, who used it in a handgun to accidentally kill 19-year-old Anthony King, a friend he’d invited over while housesitting for an Elma couple.

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?

– Rod Watson in Cabela’s ruling a warning shot against gun rights myopia

comments

  1. avatar FedUp says:

    There is a much bigger problem with a law denying the civil rights of 19 year olds than there is with this lawsuit.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      18 to 21 year olds are treated as conditional adults in a lot of instances.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        It’s an infringement of their rights. If you are old enough to go to war you are old enough to be recognized as an adult

        Conditional just means you don’t believe in rights.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Hopefully you detected my displeasure at the double standard legal adults face.

          You can be tried and convicted as an adult, marry, enter into contracts, start a company, vote, serve your country and be financially responsible for yourself but you can’t buy a beer or own guns the US government trains 17 year olds to be proficient with.
          26th amendment was supposed to somehow correct all this but there aren’t enough people in that age range to scare politicians into changing the laws.

        2. avatar Prndll says:

          And yet, you set a condition!

        3. avatar saran wrappe says:

          I highly doubt he set any of the conditions. He is astute enuf to see the BS, point it out, and move on.

        4. avatar Biatec says:

          @GS650G I did.

          @Prndll. I didn’t set any conditions.

        5. avatar Prndll says:

          “If you are old enough to go to war you are old enough to be recognized as an adult”

          Certainly sounds like a condition to me.

        6. avatar Biatec says:

          I was pointing out the inconsistent logic. How can you be that ignorant? I never once said that was a condition. Where did I say there should be age restrictions on rights?

        7. avatar Ralph says:

          “If you are old enough to go to war you are old enough to be recognized as an adult”

          Being “old enough to go to war” and actually going to war are totally different things, especially now when the war going on is in the streets and against our country.

          Young people in the military should be vested with all the rights of adult citizens. Young parasites shouldn’t be treated like adults even though they’re “old enough to go to war.”

        8. avatar Biatec says:

          Sorry ralph. Rights dont have conditions or restrictions. I think you should consider moving to europe. That is a European way of thinking.

        9. avatar Prndll says:

          Lol
          The dead have no rights.

          Well, maybe last rights.

          Now if we’re going to talk about ‘respect’ of rights….

        10. avatar Prndll says:

          If we are going to be honest with ourselves about this we must be able to grasp the idea that things have changed. Pistol vs. rifle calibers do not mean anything anymore. It’s been a process that started over a hundred years ago and is more true now than ever. This 18-21 thing needs another look. For real. If you treat them like children they will act like children. Even at 25.

          I find this entire thing to be laughable and a great indication as to just how little human society has grown. Perhaps that is due to liberalism. But we are slow to change.

          How many new gun owners have even heard of “dram” much less what it is?

        11. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “The dead have no rights.”

          According to the DemonicRats they can still vote!

        12. avatar Prndll says:

          2-shay

        13. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “How many new gun owners have even heard of “dram” much less what it is?”

          Just the ones that enjoy a ‘wee dram’ of good whisky now and again… 🙂

        14. avatar Hannibal says:

          “Sorry ralph. Rights dont have conditions or restrictions. I think you should consider moving to europe. That is a European way of thinking.”

          What does that mean? If a 6 year old walks into a gun store with cash can they buy a gun and ammo? Just trying to figure out where your rights begin and end. If your argument is that being ‘old enough to serve’ should be the age of majority- why? Why not regress it another step and simple make it only applicable for those who DO serve?

      2. avatar DJ says:

        But at 17 you can pick up a rifle or a handgun for the US Military.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          At 17 I did both and operated a class 3 M16. One of the perks of wearing the uniform.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Only after days of training, both classroom and range time, under experienced NCOs and range officers.

          And I agree, I think every American should undergo intensive firearms training at about age 18 or 19, and then be granted the right to CCW, etc.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “And I agree, I think every American should undergo intensive firearms training at about age 18 or 19, and then be granted the right to CCW, etc.”

          For once, something we both agree on, Miner!

          And it should be available to all children, the exact same way driver’s education is provided in high school. Parents can opt out if they want, but since all the cool kids will be taking the class, they won’t want to be left out.

          A car is just as lethal of a weapon as a motor vehicle…

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          The best thing for the ‘well-regulated militia’ as meant in the founding documents, would be standardized, universally available training by states. Wouldn’t be hard, guns aren’t nearly as difficult to figure out as cars. I think it might have been the NRA that came to my high school and did a couple gym sessions worth of training with airguns (could have been another organization- it’s been some time). It wasn’t new to me but it was kinda neat to watch kids who had lived in a city up until high school start enjoying shooting, even with just a pellet rifle.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          And don’t train them how to use a rifle only, include land navigation, woodscraft, basic skills, phonetic alphabet, 5wpm code, etc. Teach them what a table of organization and equipment is, a frag order, a warning order.

        6. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          first of all, I can’t believe I actually agree with Miner on anything, but yeah, neat. Anyway, while not exactly what you’re describing, what the BSA used to be is nearly just that. Outdoor skills, land navigation, basic marksmanship, first aid, were all core curriculum. There’s still some good chapters out there since each one has a lot of autonomy, but unfortunately most of them are glorified daycare now thanks to soft societal standards and several creeper kid diddlers that tarnished the organizations name.

          Ideally BSA needs to just die and something else like it needs to take its place. I fear it wouldn’t catch on unless advertised well. Maybe try to target minority kids to go since that’s the hot buzz these days and nature exposed and self-reliance is good for everyone, particularly kids who don’t get to experience outdoor activities regularly.

      3. avatar Ron says:

        Not when they are being prosecuted in the courts.

      4. avatar billy-bob says:

        Unless they’re bangers and thugs, then they’re ‘children’.

    2. avatar former water walker says:

      I married the girl I knocked up at 19…I sure felt like an “adult”! In Kamaltoes America no when can buy ammo…this is just a BS cash grab.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Then I got Mary pregnant
        And man, that was all she wrote
        And for my nineteenth birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat
        We went down to the courthouse
        And the judge put it all to rest
        No wedding day smiles, no walk down the aisle
        No flowers, no wedding dress”

        The eternal wisdom of the great American philosopher, Bruce Springsteen.

    3. avatar Bake says:

      Maybe SCOTUS can strike that law down as unconstitutional. These are really unenforceable laws because almost all “handgun” ammo can be used in a long gun.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Especially considering the proliferation of PCCs nowadays and the blurring of the former lines between what was classically a long gun and a pistol. Lots of blurring going on today that negates the need for laws set forth generations ago.

        SBR/brace?
        Rifle/pistol ammo?
        Bump stock/belt loop/full auto?

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Actually, now that we have half of the team who authorized braces and bump stocks headed back into the White House, I am optimistic.

          It is our job to hold their feet to the fire and make sure that the Biden/Harris administration continues to expand our gun rights, just like the Obama/Biden administration did.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          It appears the Trump team is heading back to the white house.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “It appears the Trump team is heading back to the white house.”

          To clean out their desk and be escorted out of the building by security?

        4. avatar Fun Gunner says:

          Miner, Trump is still President until January, with all the powers that come with it (including executive orders, pardons, etc). More fun to come. The dems are sure to get triggered. I’ve got popcorn ready.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          You have your popcorn out, do you?

          Being entertained by the misfortune of other Americans, that’s the new American way, sad.

    4. avatar C says:

      Parent failure trying to push the blame off on someone else, sounds like a dumb liberal.

    5. avatar Optimistic Engineer says:

      I believe the right to vote, serve in the military, and drink should all be tied to the adult right to own a gun. Just don’t do all at once. 😉

  2. avatar Free Kyle!!! says:

    TRUMP 2020!!!

    1. avatar JB says:

      12 More Years!

  3. avatar GS650G says:

    The left will now go for universal ammo background checks nationwide.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Absolutely. Then you’ll have to pay for each background check on top of a sin tax on the ammo.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        And no one needs more than a box or two per day. Of course.

  4. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    There’s also something called a fake ID or stolen ID. Bars have been charged with selling alcohol to a minor with a fake ID. How would the clerk know? Have a private investigator at each store? My driver’s license picture doesn’t look much like me. Does yours?

    1. avatar William Brennan says:

      My driver license does. My CCW? It…could be better. A lot. And it is supposed to be a duplicate of my driver license.

    2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      yes. my drivers license picture does look like yours.
      holy crap are you handsome.

  5. avatar Robert Campbell says:

    The problem is the kid doesnt have any money, Cabelas does, so there you go. They are not suing the moron at fault but the innocent with big pockets.

    Not a damn thing to do with fault.

    If the law says no handgun ammo under 21 the law is the law.
    He DID buy it for a handgun.

    They will probably settle for some unGodly amount.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      I’m trying to figure out why the couple he was house sitting for are also part of this suit? Makes no sense with the information provided.

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    This was a tragedy like all shootings. Blaming Cabelas not only is a non solution it distracts from the real cause which is a lack of education about guns and a failure of the individual to be responsible.

    Even if all retailers find a way to do what the suit demands the should have done this accident would still be possible.

    But at least the lawyers will get paid…..

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    Try to regulate pistol ammo.
    What’s that you say? Rifles can use pistol ammo?
    I guess we’ll just have to regulate all ammo, then.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      There you go. Slippery slope? You mean that 45° decline covered in wet moss, petroleum jelly, oil, bacon grease, sexual lubricant, and silicone spray directly over a pit that appears to slide into the Jaws of Hell? You fucking Right Wing crazies are always fear mongering!

  8. avatar James Ivy says:

    That was always my question when I was 18 my second firearm was a marlin rifle in 9mm and every now and then I would be initially denied a sale in Virginia that it was “pistol” ammo, you can’t effectively regulate the sale of ammo specifically to whether it is for rifle or pistol since we here all know that if its a cartridge we will make anything and everything to make it go off.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      And don’t forget .22 rimfire which also can be used in pistols and rifles.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “And don’t forget .22 rimfire which also can be used in pistols and rifles.”

        https://northamericanarms.com/shop/firearms/naa-22lr/

  9. avatar Roh-Dog says:

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Unless that comma stands for ‘and ammo, high capacity magazines that are illegal for hunting, too’, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to ammunition.
    Also, there is no right to PVS-14s, IR lasers, or coat hangers.
    Get in line to get on the F**KING train, jingoistic traitors!
    Via la demolitión! All hail Our Supremest Leader, Mrs Harris.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, yeah, but more legibly for those who may not initially understand, ammunition is an integral part of a firearm, as such the right to keep and bear ammo shall not be infringed. And laws which restrict 100-round mags for hunting are also unconstitutional, while laws forbidding loading more than X cartridges in it while hunting are fine.

  10. avatar Prndll says:

    Part of the answer is that .45ACP is NOT handgun ammunition. It is JUST ammunition.

    If this is all going to even be a thing, then we should set an established age for ALL ammunition. But what defines “ammunition”? Well, for any LEGAL purpose it should ONLY include center fire and rim fire.

    This is such a big part of what results from twisting terminology to mean things it doesn’t. Like clip vs. magazine or the meaning of the AR15 name.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Part of the answer is that .45ACP is NOT handgun ammunition. It is JUST ammunition.”

      Well no, it is specifically designed as pistol ammunition.

      That’s why John Browning named the cartridge ’.45 Automatic Colt Pistol’.

      Some manufacture could make a rifle that chambers that round, but the round is still designed for a pistol or handgun.

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        No, it is specifically designed for anything chambered in that caliber.

      2. avatar gus says:

        yes, it was designed for a pistol. low power, low case volume. let’s be fair about this.

        however, there are so many firearms these days of every type and description, the lines are completely blurred across the spectrum from handgun to rifle and you will find something chambered for anything. it’s not fair to restrict ‘handgun’ ammo because handgun ammo is not at all limited to handguns anymore.

        1. avatar Prndll says:

          “These days”?
          I would hardly consider the Tommy Guns of the twenties to be pistols.

      3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        someone obviously never saw a lever gun in 45 Colt or 32-20.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Uh, .45 Colt and .45 acp are not the same.

      4. avatar Southern Cross says:

        And .223 Remington, 7.62×39, 5.45×39, and even .308 Winchester now classified as “pistol” cartridges because pistols have been made for those cartridges?

      5. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Designed as handgun ammunition is of no import.

        A rifle chambered in 45 acp only takes that round.

        Similarly, 223 was designed as rifle ammo, but there is whole used in pistols.

        Also 410 revolvers are chambered for a eound originally designed for long gun. Now there are 410 rounds specifically designed for handguns….not shotguns.

        The firearm dictates the round…..not the original designer.

    2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      I have a .45acp rifle. And a pistol as well. The ammo is the same.

      All the attempts at precrime prevention fail, indeed they are not designed or capable of succeeding, just more of the “just do something”, death by 1000 cuts approach to gun control. Whatever they can pass.

      All the short barreled vs 16″, sporting purposes, AWB import ban, import pistol points, pistol vs rifle vs AOW vs just a firearm, this person can buy these types of guns but not these ones, one a month, waiting periods. Just silly rules. Someone will still kill with whatever quantity of guns, whatever size, style, shape, color, bayonet lug or not, sporting or not, pistol or not, mag size, etc. The silly limitations don’t make any gun not lethal. And many millions more will defend themselves and lawfully use and own the same weapons.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “All the attempts at precrime prevention fail”

        Does that include the laws against unlicensed practice of medicine?
        Because I am ready to operate on that enlarged prostate of yours, at a significantly lower price than your local hospital!

        Bend over, and prepare yourself to receive the Invisible Hand of the true capitalist economy.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Should we sue the gas station that sold the fuel used in the drunk drivers car? Should we sue the company that made the car?

          Your attitude is a boon towards capitalism. Think of how many more billions, possibly even trillions of dollars those fat cat insurance execs will rake in under your system.

          Your way is to make us like venezuela. Poverty for all.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Oh, jaybird, did you say something?

          I’m sorry, I was too busy reading over your posts about how I was helping to get Trump elected.

          Now what was it you were saying?

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Your celebration is a tad early. That’s what I was saying. And again, you fail to address the actual point. You socialists never seem to be able to grasp just how damaging you are to a country.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Should we sue the gas station that sold the fuel used in the drunk drivers car?”

          Maybe.

          If a barkeep sells an obviously drunken patron more liquor, he can be held responsible for the outcome.

          Should a gun shop owner be held responsible if he sells an obviously drunk person a firearm who later uses it to kill or wound someone while drunk?

          Many interesting questions.

          But like many liberal Democrats, I believe in personal responsibility.

          Including the personal responsibility of the merchant who knows he is providing a lethal device to an obviously incapacitated person.

          Really, the idea of personal responsibility is a concept that you conservatives should explore and adopt.

  11. avatar James Ivy says:

    I’m loving the democratic trolls on here! sorry no one has bit and argued with you Its almost like we are reserved and intelligent. Wanting to start a argument and stir up problems almost like you need it like a drug and feel good doing it, is there anything y’all want to talk about? Every argument I’ve had with a democrat ive never once had a factual rebuttal to anything stated its the same old your a “insert slander here”. If this lawsuit isn’t a perfect example of the problem with regulating ammunition please give a factual example of why it should remain a law.

    1. avatar Roh-Dog says:

      Slander is the most powerfulest hammer of the politically vain. You will learn to love the hammer, if not, the sickle.

  12. avatar Debbie W. says:

    If ammo is sold to an underage individual there is a fine for the seller. No way does that constitute liability. If this frivolous lawsuit prevails then every round sold in America is a liability risk for the seller. i.e. A seller sells ammo to a 40 year old who was arrested, jailed for an assault, released on bail and uses the ammo to finish off the victim. Is the ammo seller liable? Is law enforcement and the bail bondsman liable?

    The lawsuit is based on ignoring the carelessness and stupidity of a 19 year old. Rest assured it will not be decided in juvenile court.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “then every round sold in America is a liability risk for the seller.”

      Well yes, even the seller has a personal responsibility, right?

      Would it be OK for a merchant to sell a bottle of battery acid to a seven-year-old?

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Sure, little kids can buy corrosive oven cleaners in grocery stores TODAY…

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Doesn’t the clerk making the transaction have an obligation to make sure he is not enabling the injury of another person?

          “Son, did your mother send you in, is she out in the car? Can I call her at home to make sure this purchase is OK?“

          I believe the members of a society owe a duty to one another to do their best to make sure they are not the cause of unjust harm to another member.

          But that’s just me, some people just don’t give a shit about their brothers and sisters.

        2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          pretty naive. Its incredibly easy to lie and the buyer has no substantive reason to tell you anything anyway. While it is obviously not right to sell a good to someone who is very clearly and unambiguously not appropriate to receive it (guns/ammo to a person who is under the influence, pharmaceuticals to clearly young children, et cetra) it is not incumbent on the seller, nor should it be, to be an amateur sleuth and determine the needs and appropriateness of every sale made provided their is no easily discernable reason to think it wouldn’t be appropriate.

  13. avatar JP Ruiz says:

    18 years old is the start of the Legal Age Of Adulthood……….14th Amendment……Equal Protections…………18 year olds can buy handguns and ALL COMPONENTS OF THEM.

    Fuck off to the STASI Scum on the Left, and their filthy, Communist China Loving, Billionaire Donors who are Pigs At the Trough.

    It’s time for our side to go on Counter Offensive regarding Gun Laws, especially the 1968 GCA’s Prohibition on sales of Handguns to 18 Year Olds.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “the 1968 GCA”

      You know, that was 50 years ago, I think your granddad needed to protest and failed so here we are!

  14. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “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. – Clearly, responsible ammunition sellers should be hiring better psychics in order to predict the future more accurately. How much ammo do they sell to 19-year olds? How much of it is used to negligently kill by someone not following basic safety rules? Were they supposed to know that the 4 basic safety rules are somehow too complicated for a 19-year old to follow with a handgun???

  15. avatar MarkPA says:

    The trick here is to figure out how to structure a lawsuit that would shake-out the irrationality of this case. Here is my stab at structuring such a lawsuit.

    We find a (sympathetic) plaintiff, say a 19 yo battered single mother who buys a .410 shotgun for self-defense of hearth and home.

    Next, we find a (not so sympathetic) respondent with enough skin-in-the-game to be willing to play-to-lose; say someone like Cabela’s.

    Our plaintiff walks into a Cabela’s asking to buy .410 birdshot. The Cabela’s clerk (with explicit instructions from his boss) refuses to sell her .410 birdshot because there exists the Tarus Judge which is a handgun which will accommodate such shotgun shells. No evidence that our plaintiff owns such a handgun. It’s just Cabela’s policy to refuse to sell any cartridge/shell that could fit in any handgun no matter how obscure.

    We need a jurisdiction – Washington state will do I think – which gives our plaintiff a cause of action for discrimination based on age.

    She sues Cabela’s on grounds of discrimination based on age and denial of civil rights (the right to arms) claiming that the Federal law is unConstitutional.

    Such a lawsuit would complement the suit already in process (IIRC) which prohibits an FFL from selling a handgun to someone between 18 and 21. Nevertheless, there are distinct issues in my proposed case.

    If the Federal law in question is irrational in the way it is structured then it can’t stand up to the Rational Basis test. It certainly wouldn’t stand up to the Intermediate Scrutiny test. Congress would have to jump through a lot of hoops to make the law rational-enough to meet Intermediate Scrutiny.

    Imagine what they would have to do. They would have to try to find distinguishing criteria that would tend to sort-out those cartridges that lend themselves to uses suitable for young people (marksmanship, hunting, fowling) vs. those suited for self-defense. They would tie themselves in knots in such an attempt; whereupon, they would abandon the effort.

    SCOTUS might well find a power of Congress to discriminate between 18-yos vs 21-yos to exercise their 2A rights. (If SCOTUS could not do so how could they uphold Congress’ power to so discriminate in handing out highway subsidies to states that limit drinking to 21-yos?) To apply that discrimination to guns based on the long-gun/hand-gun distinction might be rational and the best they could do under intermediate scrutiny.

    Yet, it is far less likely that Congress could discriminate on cartridges. And if they couldn’t do so (or wouldn’t care to undertake the effort) then a tactic might be to push them into the position of having to try-to-do-so in order that they might fail and give up.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Praise the lord, I am not a lawyer. However, it is my understanding that the plaintiff in a lawsuit such as you describe needs to have suffered damage in order to have standing to bring such a case. IOW, your 19 year old mom would need to be attacked and suffer injury/death before the suit could go anywhere. Planning on that crosses the line into crazy. Look for a case, fine, but not create one.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      In how many calibers were those bolt action pistols such as the Remington XP100, or the single shot Thompson Contender made in?

      Should all those calibers be now designated as “pistol cartridges” too?

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        That’s the catch in any proposed “cop-killer bullet” legislation, which tries to ban ammo that can penetrate ballistic vests AND can be fired in a handgun.

  16. avatar Tori B says:

    When I read the federal law it looks like FFL holders (“Licensees”) aren’t allowed to sell pistol ammo to those under 21. I see nowhere that it says non-FFLs can’t sell pistol-ammo to 19-year-olds, or that possession is illegal. I understand Cabelas is a “licensee”, making it moot in this case, but does anyone know for certain that private sales of ammo is illegal to someone under 21? It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve stuck that in the law somewhere… but what *federal* law says that?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “…does anyone know for certain that private sales of ammo is illegal to someone under 21? It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve stuck that in the law somewhere… but what *federal* law says that?”

      No federal law that I’m aware of, but some states like California and Illinois do make it illegal…

  17. avatar American Patriot says:

    With a biden win get used to it……Probably have to go thru a 30 day background check to buy ammo with a $.25 tax on each rd.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Biden ain’t winning. He’s short numbers and the remaining states are trending Trump.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        The Democrats will always “find” enough votes. In their TDS minds, Trump stole the 2016 election from Saint Hillary, so they will steal it back in 2020. Voter fraud is a long Democrat tradition.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Isn’t this exciting!

        What’s going to happen?

        “A judge in Michigan said Thursday afternoon she would deny a plea from the Trump campaign to stop the processing and counting of absentee ballots in the state, mainly citing the fact that the counting is already largely done.”

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Fear not comrade, there will soon be plentiful opportunities to execute deplorables into the ditch. Utopia will be achieved after the next massacre, and the next, and the next, and the next. The more we look for enemies of the state, the more we keep finding.

          (Sarcasm, in case anyone else didn’t notice, but based on historical precedents)

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          I respectfully disagree, recent history indicates otherwise.

          When the Democrats under President Barack Hussein Obama took control of the White House in 2009, they also controlled both the House and Senate as well as a majority, more or less, on the Supreme Court.

          Yet there were no deplorables executed and thrown into the ditch during those two years of complete control of the United States government by the Democratic Party.

          In fact, gun rights were extended greatly during that time period, bump stocks and pistol braces legalized under the Obama/Biden administration as well as the removal of Reagan era restrictions on carrying firearms in national forest and BLM managed properties.

      3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        JWM?

        “Biden’s Lead Expands In Nevada As Vote Count Drags On; Philly Dems Move To Stop Trump Observers”

        https://www.zerohedge.com/political/where-things-stand-2020-presidential-race

  18. avatar Anymouse says:

    There’s no definition of handgun or long gun ammunition. If it isn’t in the gun, you can’t tell. Traditionally, there have been single shot handguns from T/C, Remington, and Magnim Research in any caliber you could think of. Now, PCC and braced pistols are blurring the lines even more. It isn’t just for sales. AP ammo ‘designed and intended for use in a handgun’ is restricted, but rifle is ok.

  19. avatar Kendahl says:

    There are two motivations for this lawsuit. The primary one is that Cabela’s has deep pockets while the dumbass who shot his buddy doesn’t. The other is to use the courts to raise the cost of engaging in the firearms business to unprofitable levels.

    Personally, I have no objection to requiring a permit to possess a firearm or a permit to carry one in public whether openly or concealed. It’s on the same level as requiring a hunter safety class in order to get a hunting license. The training classes should be readily available and loss of eligibility should be based solely on previous examples of bad behavior with firearms.

    It’s my understanding that the United States is unique in having a written constitution that takes precedence over the national government and a supreme court whose duty it is to rein in the government when it oversteps the authority granted to it by the constitution. In most countries, the government can do whatever it wants. Left wingers find constitutional limitations inconvenient and want to do away with them. As far as they are concerned, the Bill of Rights should consist of one sentence, “You have the right to shut up and do as you are told.”

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      “I have no objection to requiring a permit to possess a firearm or a permit to carry one in public whether openly or concealed.”

      Presumably, because you trust that the government won’t use that permitting requirement to block you based on some real or imagined reason. Not everyone is so trusting if government.

    2. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      “Personally, I have no objection to requiring a permit to possess a firearm or a permit to carry one in public whether openly or concealed.”

      What other right requires government permission? You do not have an enumerated right in the constitution to hunt therefore a hunting permit (permission) can be required. You do, however, have the right to “keep & bear arms” and just in case that isn’t clear enough for some it means “own/have and carry”. As there are no modifiers referencing how, when, or where, by extension it is without limitation in the public space. The government by contract with the people (Constitution) cannot legitimately license a right nor can it legislate conditions.

      The suit against Cabelas is lawfare, plain and simple, and should have been squashed by the court.

  20. avatar Arizona Free says:

    Use to be an adult was 21 for guys and 18 for girls. Guys just took longer to grow up. As we see today it’s closer to 30. Just make 21 the age for everything. Happy birthday you are from this day forward an adult in all aspects. No exceptions. No more living off parents car/medical insurance policies.

  21. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Ok I will ask. What long gun is in 45acp? Unless we are talking about shotgun adapters.

    1. avatar Ed J says:

      Being from NY, where this lawsuit is filed, I know of at least one manufacturer that makes several variations of a 45ACP rifle, Just Right Carbines. Oh, and they are located in NY. I find it amusing that the case is moving forward because the court said that there are no rifles currently available that meet NY SAFE Act compliance that use 45 ammo. Take a look at the JRC website, they make them both NY and California compliant

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email