Sinatra_Gunz1 said:
I really don't understand this "connection to a crime" thing. Either YOU committed the crime or not.
I have no control over what someone else does.
Me neither. And we all know that, rationally-speaking, that's the way it should work....
How you think things should work and how things actually work in real life in the real world are often different.
With regard to possible criminal liability for transferring a gun to a prohibited person, the teat is basically whether you knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the person was prohibited under federal or state law from possessing a gun. If you're unlucky, whether you had "reasonable cause to believe" will be decided by a jury. While the jurors would be instructed that they must make their decision based on circumstances at the time of sale, they will still be deciding after the fact.
The issue of possible civil liability is more complicated.
If a buyer hurts someone or commits a crime with a gun sold by a private liability will generally be based on negligence.
Negligence in law is basically:
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Negligence is generally a question for a jury. Basically the jury will need to decide, after all the evidence about what took place and what everyone said or did is presented whether the defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in the same situation.
And how a jury would conclude a reasonable and prudent person should act in the course of selling something to a stranger would be influenced by what was being sold. Since a gun can be used particularly effectively and efficiently to do evil by someone so inclined, an impartial jury might easily decide that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise more care selling a gun to a stranger than selling an chair to a stranger.
And remember that if you're now being sued about that gun you sold, the person you sold the gun to committed a crime or hurt someone with it. So now, with the knowledge that the gun you sold was used for an evil purpose, a jury will be closely examining the evidence about what went on during the transaction to decide if a reasonable and prudent person would have sold the gun to that buyer under the circumstances that obtained at the time of sale.
Even though it discusses the nature of a gun owners duty of due care in a different context, the storage of a gun, rather than the sale, loan or entrustment to another person of a gun, this case from gun-friendly Montana, (
Estate of Strever v. Cline, 924 P.2d 666 (Mont., 1995), at 671 -- 672) offers some interesting insights:
...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:
Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.
As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).
Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.
Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...
Note especially the discussion of what "reasonable care" means with regard to firearms (
Estate of Strever, at 671, quoting from Restatement (Second) of Torts, emphasis added):
...As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....
Also, as a private seller, you will not shielded from liability under the Protection of Lawful Conduct in Arms Act (15 USC 7901,
et seq).
