I'm not arguing, I'm kinda feeling this whole thing out through discussion. I suspect that this little corner of law isn't actually very fleshed out. I said it doesn't matter what he claims to have known on the basis of most criminal law. If you do a straw purchase, and then claim as a defense that you didn't know it was illegal, they don't care. You're still guilty. Right? "Ignorance of the Law is no Excuse". Which then begs the question why right a line in the law that the FFL is assumed to know the laws of both states? Does it matter if he knows? It's still an unlawful transfer.
As far as I can tell that's what this case hinges on. If it was an unlawful transfer, then he has civil liability. If lawful, then he's protected from same.
I'm right there with you in trying to figure this out. As to your question, "Which then begs the question why [write] a line in the law that the FFL is assumed to know the laws of both states? Does it matter if he knows? It's still an unlawful transfer," don't forget the rest of that line in the law:
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
....
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
So the selling FFL is "presumed" to know the laws of both states ... unless there is evidence that he doesn't. What constitutes evidence that he doesn't? Does he have to post a sign? Does the fact that Academy made the sale despite the fact that Colorado would not have allowed that rifle to be sold
with that magazine (but would have allowed the exact same rifle to be sold with a 10-round magazine) constitute "evidence" that Academy did not know the laws of both states?
I dunno, but I'd love to be on the jury.
