Gander Mountain in major Straw Purchase Lawsuit

S

steve4102

New member
Gander Mountain is in a major law suit where they sold a couple firearm to Dawn Nguye that were later used in the commission of a crime. She plead guilty to falsifying firearms forums, now the Brady Bunch is going after Gander Mountain claiming they should have known it was a Straw purchase.

The litigation could be far reaching given the size of the retailer, which has drawn the backing of gun control advocates. The families are being represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a pro-gun control group.

“But as time went by, new and very troubling facts emerged,” the plaintiffs statement continued. “These facts suggest that the loss we have endured could have been avoided. If only the store had acted responsibly.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ors-store-at-the-center-of-a-big-gun-lawsuit/

If this law suit is successful, soon nobody will be willing to sell firearms to the public.
 
Typically poor writing by yet another so-called "journalist."

The litigation could be far reaching given the size of the retailer, which has drawn the backing of gun control advocates. The families are being represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a pro-gun control group.
Click to expand...

As written, the first sentence says that the retailer has drawn the backing of gun control advocates. Of course, it's actually the litigation the antis are supporting. Schools of journalism really need to start teaching would-be journalists to speak and write English.
 
This is the reason they think Gander Mountain should have "known" it was a Straw Purchase...

The suit claims the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) warned gun dealers that indicators of a straw purchase include multiple firearms being bought at once or more than one person entering the store together and paying with cash, which plaintiffs claim the store’s staff should have known.
Click to expand...

In other words, they expect the sales staff to be mind-readers.

How ridiculous is it that being with someone and using actual money is supposedly suspicious?:rolleyes:
 
There was a similar case in Austin a few years ago, long story and I don't remember all the details but a dealer at gun show was convicted and received I think a two year sentence. The argument was that he should have known it was a straw purchase. I can't tell you how many times I've noticed at a gun show that a female is filling out the paper work for a new gun purchase with her boyfriend/ husband sitting beside her. Wonder why that is?
 
I've purchased more than one handgun at a time to save paying the background check fee. I've seen husband/wife couples buying matching guns at the same time, or just a gun for each of them.

Paying in cash? Well it's unusual to be carrying several hundred dollars in cash for a purchase, but not illegal.

Indicators of maybe, but not a guarantee of a straw purchase.
 
Obviously there are probably a lot of folks that purchase firearms and match the above described profile for any number of reasons. Regrettably this is just more covert gun control as these self appointed elites try to force their idea of what’s best on everyone else. The sad thing is many retailers may find it necessary to change their policies to avoid unreasonable litigation.
 
jag2 There was a similar case in Austin a few years ago, long story and I don't remember all the details but a dealer at gun show was convicted and received I think a two year sentence. The argument was that he should have known it was a straw purchase....
Click to expand...
That was Paul Copeland.
-He was not a licensed dealer.
-He knew the actual buyer was not a legal resident of Texas.
-He knew the person handing him the cash was not the actual buyer.
-Copeland had a history of bragging that he was immune from ATF.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/09/texas-gun-dealer-gets-prison-sentence-selling-gun-illegal-immigrant-id-illegal/

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GovtResponsetoMotiontoSupressPaulCopelandCase.pdf



I can't tell you how many times I've noticed at a gun show that a female is filling out the paper work for a new gun purchase with her boyfriend/ husband sitting beside her. Wonder why that is?
Click to expand...
Ummmm............it may surprise you to learn that women not only buy guns, but they shoot them too.;)
 
gun purchase gun shows

I have purchased weapons pistols rifles at gun shows, the guy with the booth says you paying cash, yep ok heres your gun no questions asked,right next to him is a guy with a booth who has a lic an you want to buy the same weapons ,you have a ton of paper work to fill out,why would anybody want to do business with him ?????here in ms. it happens all the time at the gun shows an its totally legal, you rent a booth an you sell what ever you have for sale except fully auto weapons, then you need a ffl lic
the point is are they expecting these people to be mind readers ?? do they know what their intentions are with the pistol they just bought ?? is the wife just being nice buying the husband a pistol,my wife has done this for me,not that I cant buy it myself, I have a federal weapons permit,that says it all
 
captneil19 .....you have a ton of paper work to fill out.....
Click to expand...
Horsehockey.
Name, address, birthplace, Ht, Wt, gender, birthdate, race/ethnicity, answer a dozen questions yes or no, state of residence and country of citizenship.....and sign/date the form.

That's it. Anyone who says it's a TON OF PAPERWORK is being overly dramatic or has never actually bought a gun from a dealer.





why would anybody want to do business with him ?????
Click to expand...
Maybe because they can't pass the FBI NICS check the dealer will run on the buyer.;)




I have a federal weapons permit,that says it all
Click to expand...
Really?:rolleyes:
Tell us more about this "Federal Weapons Permit".
 
The way the ATF has explained it to us is that often buyers bring someone with them when purchasing a firearm so not suspicious but when the accompanying party flatly picks out the firearm or is the person paying then the red flags should be waving.
 
Paying in cash? Well it's unusual to be carrying several hundred dollars in cash for a purchase, but not illegal.
Click to expand...

At the shows I go to, its not unusual, it is the USUAL method. Paying with a card is unusual, and checks...people don't much like them anymore.

I always make sure I have cash, and not just cash, but cash in sufficient variety that the seller doesn't have to make change.

Part of the art of haggling is the implied, if not stated, point that you are offering what you can afford. Say a guy wants $700 for something, and you bargain down to $650, giving him $700 and expecting $50 back is rude, if you are implying you can only afford $650.

Another point I have found for cash on hand is its right there. That deal might be gone by the time you come back from a cash machine.'

One time, I found a rifle I wanted, on the table, with a price tag. Talked to the guy for a bit, see if he would deal, he gave me a line about how he really wasn't looking to sell, was going to use it this season, etc. He started talking to someone else, and I started counting out bills. His boy pointed that out to him...and my friend made a comment about talking to the show organizers...

On the table, with a price tag, its for sale. On the table for display is another matter. He didn't seem real happy, but it did take my money. And I did get a rare rifle I had been hunting for...

This may be an electronic era, but in my neck of the woods, for dealing, cash is still king.

The ATF can tell dealers what ever they like (and they do), but that doesn't mean it is so, or a valid rule for every case. Every gun I've bought in my life has been with cash. Never a check, or on a card. Might have been lay-away, but it was still paid for with cash, just not all at once. ;)

The problem with the lawsuit against Gander Mtn is getting sued for not doing what a third party considers enough to prevent a second party (purchaser) from breaking the law?

How are you responsible when someone else breaks the law? I never could wrap my small mind around that idea.
 
Oruglock said:
Paying in cash? Well it's unusual to be carrying several hundred dollars in cash for a purchase, but not illegal.
Click to expand...
Must be a generational thing.

I'm a certified olde pharte, officially declared "older than dirt" by the whippersnappers in my Jeep club. I don't like to buy with plastic if/when I can avoid it, and I don't usually carry a checkbook with me. I don't buy a lot of guns, but those I buy generally come from one of two local FFL stores. If it's a used gun, I'll generally put down $50 to hold it and then come back another day with the balance in cash to bail it out. If it's a new gun that they order for me, they tell me the final price when they notify me the new toy has arrived, so I know how much money to bring.

If I were going to a gun show with the intent of actually buying rather than looking, I would absolutely be carrying cash. Paying cash can bring a better price.
 
One shop I know doesn't give a discount for cash, but if you pay cash, in full, the listed price, they will eat the tax. (for some customers, anyway :D)

I assume their list price provides enough profit they can get away with that. ;)
 
Question,
What is an FFL like Gander Mountain supposed to do if they "feel" the purchase may be a Straw.

The buyer, pays cash and has a friend. After 4473 is filled out and the answer to 11(a) is Yes, Do they just call the person a lire and refuse to sell to them? Do they call the cops? What can they do and what must they do?
 
steve4102 said:
What can they do and what must they do?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the thing. So many people seem to make no distinction between hind-sight and for-sight. It's pretty obvious that the lady was suspicious now that we know she was suspicious.

Up until a few years ago, almost no one at the gun shows around here would ever take a card. It was complex and expensive. They didn't want to pay the fees, they didn't want to deal with the paper and there were no portable swipe machines. Last I was at a show, it was still frowned upon due to the expense and there was no shortage of sellers who simply did not take cards.

So Gander takes cards. Since when is it strange that we use those pieces of paper that say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"?

It's a strange world these people live in. City folk, mostly, I'm guessing. Everybody there seems to live on plastic, debit or credit. Other places, folks still use cash. I admit, I don't use cash. You'd be hard pressed to find me with money on me, almost ever. It's a convenience issue. I don't look suspiciously on someone who buys with cash.

Somebody bought my BiL's motorhome yesterday... paid $2,500 cash. Hm... maybe he's suspicious....:rolleyes:
 
^ I've refused many sales simply because it felt like a straw purchase.
I just tell the buyer why I'm refusing the sale and that I don't believe they're committing a crime but the mere appearance of a crime can get me convicted.
They always get angry and I've lost a customer but too much is at stake.
Anyone who's been in the gun business long enough eventually gets the feeling that the Feds are gunning for them, even though their jobs depend on gun dealers.
 
Anyone who's been in the gun business long enough eventually gets the feeling that the Feds are gunning for them, even though their jobs depend on gun dealers.
Click to expand...

Their jobs depend on gun dealers the way policemen's jobs depend on criminals.

While individual agents can be decent folk, the organizational attitude of the ATF has been (for many years) that gun dealers are just criminals that haven't been caught...yet...

Of course, that's just MY opinion....and worth what you paid for it..;)
 
The way the ATF has explained it to us is that often buyers bring someone with them when purchasing a firearm so not suspicious but when the accompanying party flatly picks out the firearm or is the person paying then the red flags should be waving.
Click to expand...

So, any parent buying their son or daughter a new hunting rifle for a birthday present just before the season is a suspicious and potentially illegal act?

On the surface, you can't tell from a book entry at the FFL what the circumstances were. If these cases are popping up, you have to wonder why the buyers were on the LEO radar from the start. Periodic inspections aren't catching them, something else is getting their attention.

Having FFL's running scared about the probability of it being a straw purchase does more enforcement than the BATF.

I'm particularly informed of a young man who filed bankruptcy and subsequently within weeks purchased a car, new, from the dealer - thru his father. Illegal? The title is in dad's name . . .

I would speculate that there are straw purchases by GF for felons, etc. and the BATF isn't catching them from the FFL's books after the fact. They are finding the felon in possession - a parole officer showed up for a check of the living quarters, or it was found on them in a traffic stop.

Leaving aside the whole Fast and Furious issue, straw purchase enforcement is usually after the fact, and certainly very little other than the FFL will control it. Which is why I assert that the FFL's are doing the BATF's work, and should ask to be compensated for it. ;)

Protecting a source of income isn't wrong, but at a certain point, there's no way to ensure all the facts. That is up to NICS. Some harrassment suit after the fact is just the risk of living in America anyway. A suit against the straw purchaser for their act would be the better resort. And a national FFL dealers organization would be a great way to get that ball rolling.

I have to ask, where is the national database of straw purchasers to check against?
 
It's certainly true that if a dealer has reasonable grounds to believe that a transaction is a straw purchase or is otherwise unlawful, he still completes the transaction and it turns out that the transaction was unlawful, the dealer could have criminal (or perhaps even civil) liability. But we have insufficient information upon which to form any sort of reasonable opinion about whether or not Gander should have known the deal was tainted. That would be a question of fact, and we just don't have the facts.

There's nothing particularly unique or novel about the Brady argument here. "Know or should have known" can be a basis for liability in many contexts, but it's still a question of fact.

My guess is that the Brady group brought this lawsuit primarily for publicity purposes.
 
paperwork

dogtown tom I stand down,your correct its not a lot of paperwork,the point I was making was, I have seen at gun shows here you make an offer the guy agrees on cash, hands you the weapon you walk away,no paperwork,now the atf makes dealers run folks names through ncis before you can get your weapon,the non dealer, you just have to fill out a form at a show there are so many loopholes to get weapons its unreal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top