In Estate of Kim ex rel. Alexander v. Coxe, the supreme court held that, under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a dealer cannot knowingly violate firearm laws when a firearm is stolen. After obtaining a rifle from Coxe’s store, Coday shot and killed Kim. Kim’s estate sued Coxe, claiming the rifle was sold to Coday illegally. Coxe, claiming the rifle was stolen, moved for summary judgment. He argued that he was immune to liability because certain civil actions against a seller of firearms for actions arising from a third party’s criminal misuse of the firearm were barred by statute. On appeal, Kim’s estate argued that even if Coday did steal the rifle, Coxe still knowingly violated firearm laws when he failed to administer a background check prior to Coday obtaining the rifle. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that to knowingly fail to initiate a background check would make Coxe guilty of a crime. However, the court found the appellant’s argument illogical: to have such violation apply when a firearm is stolen was tantamount to requiring a completed background check prior to the unannounced theft. Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a dealer cannot knowingly violate firearm laws when a firearm is stolen.