by Gilbert Ambler
Hi, I am firearms attorney Gilbert Ambler, and I'm back today to talk about the newest way that the attorney generals of some anti-gun states and territories for that matter, because we're going to include DC today, are teaming up to target gun shops. And I think what they're really trying to do is they're trying to put gunshots out business, and in doing so, avoid the protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, the P-L-C-A-A. We're going to talk about this today, but before we dive into this subject, if you have not yet hit that subscribe button, what are you waiting for? Hit that subscribe button, like comment with your thoughts, share with your friends. That way you and your friends can keep getting this important Second Amendment related content. The lawsuit that I wanted to discuss is a lawsuit that both Maryland and the District of Columbia Attorney Generals teamed up to sue three Maryland area gun shops.
And what they're targeting is three gun shops that sold a combined 34 weapons to one individual. And this one individual was later prosecuted and ultimately convicted of straw purchasing firearms and turning around and selling them to criminal defendants and to people that were ineligible to possess firearms. And so 34 firearms predominantly handguns over a six month period from a combination of three different shops. And when we break that down, we're seeing that each shop, assuming it was an equal distribution, and I don't know the facts on this, but assuming it was an equal distribution of purchases from the three different shops, would've had somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 firearms per shop over a six month period. Of course, we're talking about roughly two guns a month. Now this individual who was coming in and actually purchasing the firearms was passing background checks. And that's important because the question for the courts to decide here is going to be whether the gun stores should have known that he was doing something illegal.
I should, they have known that he was straw purchasing firearms. And if I was going to audition to be a defense attorney for the gun shops here, I'd be saying, how could they have known? He came in, he was legal, he would come in, he's able to buy these firearms, he passes the background checks. Why do we have the background check in place at all if it doesn't stop people that aren't supposed to be getting guns, he's passing the background check. Nothing told me he couldn't leave with those guns, and so we sold him the guns. That's what we're in the business of doing. On the flip side, if I wanted to audition to work in the Attorney General's office in Maryland or dc, which I have no desire to do, but if I wanted to audition for that job, I would be arguing that this is a restriction similar to a lawsuit brought against a alcohol, a bar, or somewhere that sells alcohol that over pours.
So these are like the traditional DR Shop restrictions where you could be in trouble if you're a bar and you overserve somebody who gets into a car accident that night or otherwise does something illegal. So I would be saying that's essentially what we're doing here. We're going after a gun store or gun store's, plural, that should have known these three gun stores should have known that this was straw purchasing, especially if they were the same type of firearms being purchased time and time again. So if you're coming in every month buying two handguns every single month, and you are buying Glocks every time, that's a lot of Glocks. I'd want to know why you need so many Glocks unless you are of course later reselling them illegally. And so this is something that I think gun shops need to be aware of. They need to be thinking ahead.
How can we look out for these types of purchasers? And they need to be on the lookout for straw purchasers. I regularly advise FFLs a electronics. Having electronic record keeping is a great way to track how recently somebody has been in the store, because especially if you have multiple employees handling the sales of firearms, you don't want to miss something that you might be required to report to. The A-T-F-A-T-F requires you to report the sale of two or more handguns in five consecutive business days. And so if you have employee A working on Monday and he sells a Glock to an individual, and then that same individual comes in on Wednesday and the employee B is working on Wednesday, the gun store needs some system for employee B to recognize that the individual, they just sold a handgun to actually purchase one on Monday within five consecutive business days.
So electronic records solve that problem because they can flag multiple purchasers. The other thing is gun shops need to be aware of just the signs of a straw purchaser. For example, somebody that comes in and then gets on the cell phone and talks about a firearm to somebody who's not there. This is why some gun shops that you enter might have signs up that say no cell phone usage because they want to stop people coming in and then calling in prices and firearm details to somebody who's not present in the store, who they are going to resell the item to. So those are just a couple quick examples. Very curious on your thoughts, because my thought on this suit is that really what they're doing is they're going after somebody, going after three businesses in an effort to shut down businesses in a way to avoid the P-L-C-A-A.
And I mentioned the protection of lawful Commerce and Arms Act at the very beginning of this video. The P-L-C-A-A is a federal protection that protects gun shops from being, and it protects manufacturers, importers, and dealers of firearms. So FFLs collectively from being sued for a misuse of their firearms. The idea here is the same way Ford doesn't get sued when one of their trucks is used in a drunk driving incident. We don't want Remington being sued because somebody did something dangerous or stupid with a firearm. There are some exceptions. Some of those exceptions include liability products liability. So if for example, Remington sells a firearm, and I'm just using this as an example, I'm not saying Remington actually sells firearms that are deficient, but if Remington or SIG or anybody else sold a firearm that went off when it was dropped, that would be an exception to the P-L-C-A-A because there's a issue, there's a latent defect with the product.
The product itself is faulty, the fire, it's faulty, it's not supposed to go off when it's dropped. Another exception would be if the manufacturer importer or dealer is engaging in unlawful activity, which is what's being alleged here. The allegation is they are intentionally selling firearms to somebody that they should have known who's violating the gun control act and being a straw purchaser. And that is a way around the P-L-C-A-A and if they are successful in proceeding with this lawsuit, look to see a lot of your local gun stores substantially tighten up their procedures because if they accidentally sell to somebody who winds up being a straw purchaser, they're going to be worried that they too might be sued and put out of business. Again, comment with your thoughts. Let me know what you think is going on here. Until next time.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88cul-L53LQ
Credit: Gilbert Ambler, ESQ The Commonwealth's Gun Rights