Unintended Consequences?
This is America, were apparently, one can sue anyone for anything....
I glanced at the link, but did not read the whole thing, so,
based on the information provided in this thread by the posters, let me see if I understand the situation. If I'm wrong, please explain it to me...
A guy orders 5 receivers from a manufacturer. He doesn't get them in a timely manner, and makes disparaging comments about the company, their product, and customer service on the Internet.
So far, its seems to not upset reason (although it may not be particularly smart). There are a lot of things that must be proven, and are, frankly rather difficult to prove, for a suit of this kind to succeed. And proving, to a court's satisfaction, that statements actually harmed your business it not a simple matter. But, this kind of thing does happen all the time in America, some win, some lose.
Now, on to certain points, that make this one unique. Based on what has been posted here, the implication is that the company is claiming that the customer (the defendant) is a competitor in business, and therefore, the statements that (allegedly) caused damage to their business were deliberately intended to do that, and not just the opinions of a dis-satisfied customer.
I understand the logic of that kind of situation, if I'm in business, anything that hurts my competition (but not me) is good for my business. BUT, is that the case here?
Really pay attention to this next leap of logic;
SEI has to prove Jason is in the business of manufacturing or building guns as a competitor. Their proof will be the 5 receivers on order as well as how many others Jason has built and owned.
This attempt to prove Jason is a non FFL holder that builds weapons for sale as a competitor has vast consequences for all gun owners.
The anti gun lobby for years has tried to establish a number of purchases allowed for private purchase, this number has been tossed around in legislation for years.
If SEI wins a judgment that Jason's purchase of 5 receiver constitutes a non FFL competitor than all people in the future who purchase 5 guns could be in the same boat.
If SEI convinces the court system that Jason has bought, built, and sold weapons without an FFL he could go to jail if the government decided that the judgment proves Jason was a non FFL builder
There is a leap of logic here, indeed. But its not all on the part of SEI...
The law is clear about some things, and not so clear about others. What is clear is that building and selling firearms, without the specific licenses, and paying the required special taxes is against the law. This law is aimed, primarily at manufacturers, the mass market ones, not at those who build individual custom guns. A custom gun builder and a gun manufacturer have been considered two different classes under the law, for a long time, and this is particularly important where the taxes are concerned. A manufacturer pays a much larger tax, one that is too much for the ordinary small shop custom gunmaker to manage.
The way this has been determined in the past was based on the number of guns made and sold, over a given time period. As far as I know, this number is not codified in law. It may not be written in regulation, I have no idea. I do know that in the past, it was determined on a case by case basis. And, at one time, the figure of 10 guns per year was tossed around, as a point at which the case should be looked at, and a determination made, but this was not a point of law, rather an administrative guideline, for when a determination needed to be made.
I vaguely remember a court case (decades ago) where a small custom builder (who built something like 10 bolt guns in a good year) was charged with not paying the manufacturer's tax. I believe it was resolved in his favor, the decision was that, based on the small number of guns made/sold that he was not a "manufacturer" and did not have to pay the (steep) manufacturer's tax. He did still need a license to sell them (which IIRC, he did have). This might be where the 10gun guideline came from. Don't know for sure.
Now, here's where I see a leap of logic, that I cannot fully support...
SEI has to prove Jason is in the business of manufacturing or building guns as a competitor. Their proof will be the 5 receivers on order as well as how many others Jason has built and owned.
5 receivers = 5 guns (what else can you do with them?) That is a piddling number. How many other guns he has built and owned? How does that apply at all? Unless the guns were built for sale. Guns built for use, used, and later sold do not count. Guns built for a customer are a different matter.
This attempt to prove Jason is a non FFL holder that builds weapons for sale as a competitor has vast consequences for all gun owners.
No, it does not have vast consequences for all gun owners. It only has consequences for the involved parties. Consequences for him, if he is actually building and selling guns in violation of the law. Consequences for the company in their lawsuit, dependent on the decision. But not for the rest of us.
The anti gun lobby for years has tried to establish a number of purchases allowed for private purchase, this number has been tossed around in legislation for years.
This is quite true. However, there is more than just a tiny bit of difference between the number of guns one purchases for personal ownership and use, and guns (receivers) purchased/built for sale.
If SEI wins a judgment that Jason's purchase of 5 receiver constitutes a non FFL competitor than all people in the future who purchase 5 guns could be in the same boat.
This is where I have an issue with the logic. Even if the company gets a judgement that he is a competitor, just HOW does that translate to everyone who buys 5 guns being at risk of a similar finding?
I can see a (tenous) link between someone buying parts from your company, building and selling a product that your company also sells being considered a competitor. I cannot see any link between a consumer and a competitor.
Its two vastly different situations.
If SEI convinces the court system that Jason has bought, built, and sold weapons without an FFL he could go to jail if the government decided that the judgment proves Jason was a non FFL builder
This is also basically true. If he is found in violation of existing law, he will face jail and fines.
However, the devil is in the details. One can build guns without an FFL. One can sell guns, even those you built, without an FFL. But only under specific conditions, and still stay within the law. The key is the interpretation of the phrase "engaging in the business of..".
This is determined by a number of things, including, but not limited to just the number of guns involved.
The company wants to prove that because he was engaged in the business, he was a business competitor, and therefore deliberately tried to damage their business, for his own profit. If it was so ruled, that would strengthen their position in the suit. I can understand that logic. I don't agree, but I can understand the tactic.
I cannot see, however, how anyone just buying 5 (or whatever the number) of guns being put in that same category. I see it as two different things here.
One, is the company saying "this guy said bad things about us, which hurt our business, and we want damages for that".
Two, is the company saying that "he's a dealer, and therefor a competitor, and that's why he said those things that hurt us, for his own profit."
Even if they company gets everything they ask for, and he is determined to be illegally manufacturing/dealing, its still nothing more than a individual breaking already existing law. I do not see how, nor believe it could be anything that could be applied to the gun buying and owning public.
If you see it differently, please, explain to me your reasoning.
